Case 2: Moisture and Roof Holes

Violations

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 same wording as in Case 1: "we have only considered the financial claim." The fact that the wording recurs across two separate cases may, in my assessment, indicate a standard template rather than an individual assessment.

The Handler Carousel

This case set the record with 8 different case handlers. With so many changes of handler, it is difficult to ensure that the full case history follows the case.

Key Issues

1. Rejection language: Same phrasing as in Case 1
2. 8 case handlers: Record-high rotation
3. Gjensidige's expert never climbed into the attic: The assessor recommended "closing the hole" without investigating the damage behind it
4. 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.