Insurers rejecting claims because homes damaged by ‘wrong kind of weather’, Which? research reveals
Which? carried out an analysis of 133 insurance policies sold by 67 firms, finding that nearly a third (32%) of home insurance policies contain what it views as potentially unfair flood definitions and a fifth (20%) of policies have potentially unfair storm definitions. These include policies offered by some of the largest insurance firms. Policies with potentially unfair flood definitions were sold by three of the 10 largest underwriters by market share: Ageas, Aviva and Axa.
Of 54 documents which define both storms and flooding, there are four policies - offered by John Lewis, Nationwide and Tesco Insurance - for which both definitions are considered by Which? to be potentially unfair. In response to Which?’s research, Tesco Insurance has acknowledged that its wording in relation to floods could be improved.
The consumer champion based its judgement on what a ‘fair’ definition of a storm or flood is based on several factors, including: reviewing evidence that policy terms in these areas had caused harm to consumers; analysing expert, industry, regulatory and ombudsman guidance on defining these weather events; and a nationally representative survey to establish consumer expectations of what constitutes a storm or flood and the coverage they would expect their home insurers to provide in these situations.
Published complaints by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) show that insurers have rejected claims from customers who have suffered damage caused by torrential rain, because they claimed winds speeds weren’t high enough for a storm to have occurred. There are also cases where claims have been rejected when flood damage was deemed to have occurred too slowly.
Over half (56%) of home insurance policies reviewed have no definition for a flood and a third (32%) do not define a storm, leaving customers without clarity on whether they should expect to be covered if their property is damaged by one of the weather events.
Which? has reviewed previous FOS cases where claimants have been rejected when their insurer did not have a definition of a flood or storm. These show that, even in cases where insurers had no definition of storms or flood in their policies, firms still turned down claims by relying on definitions which the FOS deemed unfair.
Which? also surveyed 1,325 UK adults with buildings insurance. Over two-thirds (69%) defined a flood as an event where water enters and builds up in a home regardless of speed, while three-fifths (60%) defined a storm as a combination of extreme weather conditions, any of which could occur alone.
Most respondents both expect to be covered for floods and storms excluded by the definitions that Which? considers to be potentially unfair, and feel that to deny claims based on them would be unfair.
These consumer expectations are broadly in line with industry guidance from the Association of British Insurers, the country’s largest insurance trade association, the FOS and the Flood Re scheme, a joint initiative between the government and insurers.
Each of the 27 potentially unfair storm definitions exclude damage by at least one of rain, snow or hail alone, in the absence of strong winds, from their storm coverage. Of these, rain is the most commonly excluded event, followed by snow, hail, and then documents which exclude all three.
17 out of 42 potentially unfair policies defined flood in terms of the speed at which water enters the home. Many insurers used language like ‘rapidly’ and ‘suddenly’ while others made explicit exclusions to water which enters the home gradually.
Which? wants the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to investigate whether all firms’ storm and flood definitions comply with the Consumer Duty as part of its ongoing claims-handling review and take enforcement action where necessary.
This should include investigating whether all firms have: evidenced how they have met the reasonable expectations of their target market in any storm and flood definitions; reviewed rejected claims for storms and floods to understand how to better align their approaches to their customers’ reasonable expectations; and addressed any identified issues with their products.
The FCA should also make clear to firms, such as via issuing new guidance, that using the ABI and Flood Re definitions of storm and flood is one way for them to ensure they are currently meeting the Consumer Duty.
The FCA should also review the impact that a lack of definitions for terms such as storm and flood has on consumer outcomes, and consider requiring firms to define these terms and any others where this may better prevent harm from arising.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:
“Storms and floods can be disastrous for homeowners, yet our research shows that claims are being rejected because insurers say a property flooded too slowly, or the wind wasn’t blowing hard enough during a torrential downpour, often leaving consumers baffled.
“Consumers rightly have common sense expectations of what should and shouldn’t be covered by storm and flood damage and they’re backed up on this by industry guidance.
“The FCA must use its review into claims handling to assess whether firms are complying with their obligations under the Consumer Duty - and shouldn’t hesitate to take tough action against those falling short.”
-ENDS-
Notes to editors
Right of replies
Ageas and John Lewis declined to comment.
A spokesperson for Aviva said: “We strongly refute any suggestion that our policy wording is unfair. Our policy wording aligns with the definition of flood provided by Flood Re and has been externally tested and benchmarked. We accept the overwhelming majority of flood claims that we receive and we believe our policies are clear, providing customers with clarity about what is and isn’t covered.
“We understand how upsetting a flood can be, and when claims are notified, we prioritise getting our claims teams out to support customers. We also take a proactive approach to support customers with claims during major weather events. If extreme weather is forecast, we check our customer databases so that we can proactively contact customers who may be impacted and our claims teams are on the ground quickly to provide assistance with claims.
“Aviva has long campaigned to raise awareness of all types of flooding and we provide advice to our customers about protecting their properties. We are also working with industry and government to call for a holistic approach to flood risk management. We joined the Flood Re scheme in 2016 and we were one of the first insurers to sign up to the Build Back Better scheme. Since 2023 we have supported over 400 customers with flood resilience measures to help protect their homes from future flooding.”
An AXA spokesperson said: “At AXA we always aim to ensure our customer journeys and communications are clear, simple and as easy to understand as possible to help our customers make better informed decisions.
“The definition of flood and storm perils in AXA home insurance policy wording is in line with the advice and guidance set by independent bodies. These guidelines provide the expected standard for how insurers should treat customers when they make a claim.
“While we believe that our definition is fair, we always review every claim on an individual basis and thoroughly investigate the specific circumstances as part of the process.”
A Nationwide spokesperson said: “Flood or storm-related claims often touch on other areas of our policy which will provide cover for customers. That’s why our claims pay-out rate on flooding and storms outperforms the industry average. While we have defined sections in our policy on floods and storms, we will always take a holistic view of any claim. This comprehensive approach means claims are properly assessed in the round as opposed to being limited to a specific area of our policy.”
A Tesco Insurance spokesperson said: “We regularly review our policies to ensure we offer the best possible outcomes for our customers.
“Upon further review, we accept our wording in relation to floods could be improved.
“We are currently conducting an in depth review of our policy documents and will incorporate this feedback into this review.”
Notes
The full policy report, The Claim After the Storm, is available here: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/the-claim-after-the-storm-addkT9j8POcs
- To establish potentially unfair definitions of a storm and flood, the consumer champion reviewed expert, industry, regulatory and ombudsman guidance on defining floods and storms including information from the ABI, the FOS and the Flood Re Scheme.
- We also surveyed consumers to see how they define flood and storm, and ask about the coverage they’d expect home insurers to provide in these situations. In February 2025, Which? carried out a nationally representative survey of 2,103 UK adults to establish consumer expectations around what constitutes flood and storm. This was then filtered to 1,325 respondents who have taken out buildings insurance in the last 3 years, which forms the basis of our analysis.
This evidence was used to establish the following tests:
Which? believes flood definitions to be potentially unfair if they:
Exclude gradual, slow and steady entry of water into a building, e.g. by specifying that water must have entered the building 'suddenly' or 'rapidly;' or
Excludes gradual, slow and steady build up of water outside the building, e.g. by specifying that water must have built up 'suddenly' or 'rapidly'; or
Excludes events involving water ingress from external certain sources, - e.g. from a rise in the water table, or non-natural events (such as a burst water main outside of the property)
Which? believes storm definitions to be potentially unfair if they:
Stipulate that a storm must involve any single type of weather - e.g. high winds; or
Exclude weather consisting of any of rain, hail, high wind or snow alone either explicitly or through omission by specifying only some types of weather.
The role of the Consumer Duty: In acting to deliver good outcomes for their customers, the FCA expects firms to act consistently with the reasonable expectations of customers and to consider the reasonable expectations of customers in their target market in relation to the product or service. While the FCA is clear that the Consumer Duty does not remove consumers’ responsibility, it also makes clear that consumers can only take responsibility for their actions when they can trust that the products and services they can choose from are designed to meet their needs and they are supported by firms to make decisions.
About Which?
Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, here to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone. Our research gets to the heart of consumer issues, our advice is impartial, and our rigorous product tests lead to expert recommendations. We’re the independent consumer voice that influences politicians and lawmakers, investigates, holds businesses to account and makes change happen. As an organisation we’re not for profit and all for making consumers more powerful.
The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at endorsementscheme@which.co.uk.