Case 2: Moisture and Roof Holes
Rejected — below deductible thresholdViolations
Case Description (EN)
The Claimant discovered water infiltration through the roof, caused by holes where solar panels had been routed through the roof structure. Water flowed through the unsealed openings into the insulation, with signs of old dried moisture — indicating a longstanding problem the previous owner had not disclosed.
Two independent contractors inspected the conditions and both refused to even provide repair quotes due to the critical condition of the roof structure.
Gjensidige's Handling
Gjensidige rejected the case on September 13, 2024, citing that the damage fell below the title insurance minimum threshold.
The remarkable part: Gjensidige's rejection letter used the exact same wording as in Case 1: "we have only considered the financial claim." This identical phrasing across two separate cases suggests rejections are standardized templates — not individual assessments.
The Handler Carousel
This case set the record with 8 different case handlers. None of the 8 handlers had the full case history. Each time a new person took over, the information transfer started over — or was entirely absent.
Key Issues
- Identical rejection language: Word-for-word same phrasing as Case 1 — not an individual assessment
- 8 case handlers: Record-high rotation with no knowledge transfer
- Gjensidige's expert never climbed into the attic: The assessor recommended "closing the hole" without investigating the damage behind it
- Documented roof holes: Verified by independent building expert report — still rejected
Outcome
Fully rejected. 0 DKK paid on a claim of at least 5,300 DKK.
Photo Evidence
33 images document the damage in this case.
