Building Insurance decision

rats

Can anyone advise me if the insurance agent is being unreasonable re following.
He say we have no cover for extensive water damage to our ceiling. He says this is because the water ingress was not due to storm damage, as there was no storm on the night of the damage. Inspection showed initially missing/broken tiles and subsequently damage to the chimney. The agent says this is due to lack of maintenance. We are 3rd floor flat. Our annual building inspection was 10 days before water ingress, but inspector could not access the roof due to weather conditions. At ground level, no problems were apparent.The building insurance agent says that we are not covered as there was no storm damage.
2 points of contention.
1. the ceiling was in good repair until the water damage, there was no lack of maintenance to the ceiling.
2. weather was terrible on the week leading up to the ceiling damage and as we have regulation depth insulation in the loft space, the water may not have gone through to the ceiling for a few days.
We have not asked for costs of roof repair, but for ceiling repair.

Can anyone advise whether we should pursue this further?

FutureGirl

Although there was no water ingress before, it doesn't mean the roof wasn't in bad state of repair. Tiles come off over time, and mortar deteriorates over time - both which are not covered under a buildings insurance policy. Had the roof been in good repair, the water wouldn't have ingressed in to the ceiling.

If they are declining the roof repair, you would need to have accident damage to buildings cover on your policy to be covered for the ceiling.