Kathani and Taj found the dry in their dining room but their insurer wouldn’t pay for the damage done to their floorboards.
What happened
Kathani and Taj found a patch of damp on their dining room wall. It was caused by a leaking pipe, and their buildings insurer agreed to cover repair and redecoration costs.
Later, the couple discovered dry rot in their dining room floorboards. When a plumber came over to inspect the damage, they looked at the subfloor and found a lack of ventilation. This, combined with the rising groundwater, had created excess moisture and led to the rot.
Kathani and Taj’s insurer refused to pay to repair the floorboards. It said the policy excluded damage caused by rising groundwater, excess moisture, or rot. It also argued that the damage was gradual – another policy exclusion that would apply even if there was a different reason for the damage.
Believing their insurer was being unreasonable, Kathani and Taj came to us with their complaint.
What we said
We agreed with Kathani and Taj’s buildings insurance provider that the damage to their floorboards had been caused gradually. We also agreed with Kathani and Taj when they told us they couldn’t have known about the problem any earlier. The damage wasn’t visible to them until this incident, and they argued that this meant it wasn’t gradual.
In the end, whether the damage was classed as gradual or not didn’t really matter. We couldn’t uphold the couple’s complaint because the cause of the damage wasn’t covered.
There was no insured event for rising groundwater or excess moisture. Like most insurance policies, the cause of the dry rot wasn’t covered. This meant the insurer was acting fairly when it rejected Kathani and Taj’s claim.