Storm claims: evolving challenges for insurers and policyholders

They say nothing in life is certain except death and taxes. Yet these days, that list could easily include another inevitability – powerful named storms. Typically, we see them forecasted, see them forming, track their paths, do our best to secure our homes and take measures to protect our businesses. But no matter what we do, we can’t stop them.

In recent times, the UK has felt this reality all too often. The 2024/25 storm season has already brought six named storms, with Storm Éowyn in January 25 standing out as the most powerful in over a decade. It triggered rare red warnings, caused widespread damage, and, tragically, led to fatalities. More recently and unseasonally, in August, Storm Floris struck the country, causing severe disruption to roads, rail services, and air travel.

Despite forecasts and early warnings, countless homes and businesses still suffered extensive damage – shattered windows, broken doors, ruined furniture, water damaged machinery and, in some cases, entire roofs torn away. As a result, homes ruined, businesses interrupted and a sharp surge in insurance claims.

In the past, storm-related claims were generally straightforward for adjusters from a policy coverage perspective. But things have changed. Recent events have revealed new challenges – from disputes over policy wording to increasingly complex interpretations of coverage responsibilities.

Determining the proximate cause

One of the first challenges in handling storm-related claims is determining the proximate cause – the event most directly responsible for the damage. This becomes especially important when dealing with Perils policies, where only specific risks are covered – unlike broader All Risks policies. It also matters when certain perils carry coverage restrictions or higher excesses, making accurate classification essential.

For example, a major storm may trigger immediate flooding from a nearby river or sea. Should that be treated as a storm claim or a flood claim? 

Or imagine a storm that clogs gutters and downpipes with debris, and heavy rain that follows causes sudden water ingress. Is this considered storm damage, or does it fall under an escape of water claim instead?

While the storm itself is the initiating event, the question of which peril should be accepted for coverage purposes is rarely straightforward. These decisions are frequently debated among insurers, adjusters, and policyholders, and in complex cases, they may even require legal interpretation, which as experience shows, can vary.

Policy wording and coverage considerations

Storm coverage insurance has long excluded certain types of damage, most commonly to moveable items left in the open and to fences or gates. At first glance, these exclusions may seem simple, but in practice, they often lead to disputes. What exactly qualifies as a moveable item?

Consider, for example, a situation where a large tree is blown over during a storm and destroys a boundary fence. Some insurers accept the claim, particularly when the policy wording explicitly includes damage caused by falling trees or reinstates coverage for such scenarios. Others, however, uphold the exclusion and decline the claim entirely.

Another frequent challenge lies in determining how to categorise a damaged item. Should it fall under buildings or contents? Modern properties and businesses often feature a wide range of external installations that blur these definitions. Bird netting on roofs, ground-mounted solar panels, portable cabins used as offices or storage, freestanding advertising boards, outdoor portable lighting systems, hot tubs, flagpoles, and even so-called ‘fixed’ outdoor seating – all of these introduce potential grey areas in coverage.

In response, many policyholders or brokers now choose to specifically insure items that previously might have fallen into uncertain territory. Yet, even with clearer policy wording, disputes continue to arise, highlighting the growing complexity of storm-related claims.

Policy types and exclusions

All Risks policies are generally considered more comprehensive, covering a wide range of potential damage unless specifically excluded. In contrast, Perils policies only cover specific insured events, such as storms, and typically come with more limited exclusions.

However, the wording of All Risks exclusions can vary significantly. Take, for example, a typical clause:

‘We will not pay for damage caused by or consisting of a latent defect, defective design, or defective workmanship.’

In high-value building claims, insurers often bring in engineers to assess the cause of damage, both from a policy liability and subrogation perspective. In some cases, their findings have concluded:

‘The roof had a construction defect and latent design flaws, which made it structurally inadequate. These weaknesses were exploited and failed during the storm-force winds.’

Findings like these can shift the focus from storm damage to policy exclusions, which may lead to claims being declined. This can be a particularly sensitive and contentious issue, especially when the damage occurs during a high-profile named storm event that has already caused significant disruption and public attention.

Conclusion

We hope this article has provided useful insights into the complexities of storm-related claims and the challenges they present for insurers, adjusters, and policyholders. As recent events have shown, storms can be unpredictable in both timing and impact, making it increasingly important to review policy wording carefully and understand coverage limits.

By staying informed and adapting claims-handling approaches, insurers and policyholders alike can be better prepared to manage future events – ideally before the next named storm arrives.