Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs H claimed for damage to their conservatory roof and contents caused by snow during named storm Goretti in January 2026. Advantage declined the claim, stating the snowfall did not constitute a storm under the policy definition and that pre-existing damage contributed to the loss. The ombudsman upheld Advantage's decision, finding that weather data showed only 3-5cm of snow fell (the policy required 30cm in 24 hours for a snow storm), and that the surveyor's evidence of pre-existing deterioration, previous water ingress, and patch repairs demonstrated the underlying cause was gradual wear and tear, not the storm event. The ombudsman found no service failures and declined to order any remedy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the three-question test for storm damage claims: (1) Did storm conditions occur? (2) Is the damage consistent with storm damage? (3) Were storm conditions the main cause? The snowfall of 3-5cm did not meet the policy definition of a snow storm requiring 30cm in 24 hours, so question one failed. Additionally, even if snowfall had met the definition, the surveyor's evidence of pre-existing gradual deterioration, previous water ingress, and patch repairs meant the underlying cause was wear and tear, not the storm, so question three also failed. The policy does not cover damage occurring gradually over time.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website