The insured party, Ms T., has been living in a rented corner house with her two children since September 2015. In 2006, she got divorced and for a long time she did not have contents insurance.
Unfortunately, a blockage of the sewer pipes forced waste water from the toilet on the ground floor to rise up and overflow. Much of the ground floor of the house was submerged, and it didn’t smell very nice either. The housing association deployed workers to unblock the sewer, solving the problem.
Luckily, Ms T. had taken out contents insurance with us as of 20 April 2016. The damage expert from our support service was sent out to Ms T.’s house to survey the damage.
The expert of course asked the insured party about the exact date at which the damage occurred. According to the insured party, the damage occurred over the weekend starting on 30 April and ending on 1 May 2016. She also told us that there had been a blockage three months earlier, but that this blockage did not lead to any flooding.
The expert contacted the housing association and found the following:
The “not so ratty” housing association was able to find in the system that the insured party had requested a camera inspection on 19 April 2016. That was before the start date of this contents insurance.
What did we find?
On 17 October 2015, there had been reports of a blockage, and the mechanic had stated in the log that the entire floor was submerged. The next blockage was reported at the end of February 2016, but there was no report of any damage on this occasion.
And finally, there was a blockage on 16 April 2016 (inspection date 19 April 2016). The housing association says:
“When the mechanic arrived, the floor was still wet in places and the insured party was using various cloths to dry it. During his visit, the toilet overflowed again and the floor flooded again, because someone was having a shower upstairs.”
It was clear that Ms T. took out an insurance policy after the damage occurred and consciously gave an incorrect damage date in order to get compensation. The claim for just under € 3,000 was rejected and the policy was rescinded. Ms T.’s actions have also been entered in the appropriate registers.
She might have better luck submitting her “claim” to the housing association…