Insurance Claim/Voided policy quetion

Itsnevereasy

Dear all.

I took out an insurance policy in July 2023.

The policy renewed in July 2024 without claim.

I had a leak in my property in September 2024.

When I took out my policy, I was having building work done in the house for two years. The property was uninsured. Once the property had got to state where all construction works were completed and first fix was finished, and we were left with finishes and decoration, I took out a standard insurance policy on one of the aggregation sites. I did this in the knowledge that this was the relevant level of compliance to take out this policy.

By the time the policy renewed we were literally down to painting and a few bits of snagging.

In September of last year, I had a leak in my basement, which caused a loss for which I sought to claim. The loss adjuster attended the property four or five days after the incident.

The loss adjuster reported to the insurers that he considered the property to be still a building site. I assured the insurance people that this was not the case and we were left with mere decoration works which at the timeless I was speaking to them, were completed. This was a week after the loss adjuster attended, And I offered to send them photographic evidence to assure them of this, but they declined my offer.

Some nine months after the incident, with lots of tooling and frowing, the insurers have chosen to void my policy, seemingly on the basis of some photographs on Google Earth which show a digger in my front garden when I took out the policy and the garage open.  It is clear from the photograph that all construction works are complete.  Having voided the policy, they have also said that if there was more than £400k of works outstanding, I should not have taken the policy - there was a lot less than that outstanding!

I have no way of proving the status of the property at the time of the initial policy or at the time of the renewal, but at the time of the loss, the loss adjuster clearly saw, and took photographs, to prove the property was no longer a building site.

After nine months of limited progress, the insurer has chosen to void my policy (from inception), leaving me with Premiums being offered to me which are 6x the current premium of my renewal (with alternative providers) And I am also at a loss because they will not file my claim.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how lawful this is, in terms of when the burden of evidence date is to prove that my policy should pay out.

My broker seems to consider that the loss date, or worse ways the renewal date, is the most important date to consider, and he has pointed to case precedence to prove this - the insurers have chosen to ignore this case law. The insurer is saying that the date the policy was taken out, i.e. the original policy is the relevant date.

 It’s just the classic case of an insurer making up the rules. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. 

marcia_

 Can you not get statements from your builders and neighbours as to when the work ended? 

XRS200

Were you living in the property in July 2023?

born_again

If you are unhappy then raise a complaint & let it go to FOS to rule on.
But get your evidence in place, such as above. Builder can confirm when the work was finished.

Itsnevereasy

Hi all,

thanks for your responses.

yes, I moved in at that time and I we paying the council tax etc.  not sufficient

i have letters from my contractor to state the works were done.  Not sufficient

i offered invoices.  Proves nothing 

I’m left with the only option of the ombudsman, but interested to know if anyone knows the relevant case law as well

user1977

Not sure case law is all that relevant, sounds more like an evidential point on whose case is (on the balance of probabilities) more persuasive.

DullGreyGuy

Itsnevereasy said:

I’m left with the only option of the ombudsman, but interested to know if anyone knows the relevant case law as well

According to the below, you do...

Itsnevereasy said:

My broker seems to consider that the loss date, or worse ways the renewal date, is the most important date to consider, and he has pointed to case precedence to prove this - the insurers have chosen to ignore this case law. The insurer is saying that the date the policy was taken out, i.e. the original policy is the relevant date.

So what was the case law that the broker provided to you?


Case law is broadly irrelevant in relation to the Financial Ombudsman, they are legally bound to find a fair outcome to complaints rather than blindly follow the letter of the law as the Courts are required to do. As such finding case law may be considered by the FOS but they can choose to go against it if they feel it is unfair. 

The Financial Ombudsman also doesnt set precedent on itself and so whilst you may find cases similar to your own by searching  https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/ombudsman-decisions/ it doesnt bind the next case to be concluded on the same basis. That said more often than not decisions are similar but occasionally you get significant pivots; and example would be insurers offering reduced cash settlements when the insured has refused a like for like replacement, originally the ombudsman would uphold these complaints but then pivoted - potentially as insurers improved the contract wording to make it clearer that cash settlements are reduced.

Itsnevereasy

Thanks for the replies. 

To be honest, I did a Chat GPT prompt.

i briefed the full scenario and it spat out an exceptional response!

Because the claim was made during the renewal period, the renewal policy is the operative contract. Any misrepresentation (or correction) at that point is decisive for how the insurer may respond.

CIDRA treats the renewal as a fresh contract—once corrected at renewal, the insurer cannot rely on the original misrepresentation—unless it’s deliberate or reckless and still material.

I have a duty of utmost good faith.  To the point that even in the event where one may have misrepresented, which I had not, it would be held that the policy is valid.