Case 4: Asbestos in the Soil
Insurance Board — awaiting decisionViolations
Case Description (EN)
During excavation work on the property, the Claimant discovered buried asbestos roof tiles. Laboratory tests confirmed asbestos in the tiles. Although sand samples tested negative, the tiles were crushed — making asbestos contamination of the soil likely. The Claimant reported the discovery to Gjensidige under the title insurance policy.
Gjensidige's Handling
Gjensidige fully rejected the claim on January 5, 2026. The rejection contained several severe issues:
1. Retroactive Mandate Manipulation (Severity 10/10) The Sedgwick assessor's original mandate was an "inspection." 16 days AFTER the inspection, the mandate was retroactively changed to "asbestos mapping." This changes the basis of the report after the fact — a direct breach of good insurance practice.
2. 229-Day Processing Without Notification From the claim filing on May 21, 2025 to the decision on January 5, 2026: 229 days — without informing the Claimant about the delay. Danish Insurance Act § 18 requires insurers to respond "without undue delay."
3. Catch-22 Construction Gjensidige required a municipal order for asbestos removal to acknowledge the case. At the same time, they stated that the municipality typically does not issue such orders for private land — unless groundwater is at risk. The Claimant was placed in an impossible situation: required to obtain an order that cannot be obtained.
4. Board Decision Ignored The Danish Insurance Complaints Board has in previous decisions established that title insurance can cover cleanup of hidden environmental conditions discovered after purchase. Gjensidige completely ignored relevant precedent in their rejection.
5. Gjensidige's Own Contradictions - Gjensidige claims asbestos is "superficial" → their own assessor's report documents it is UNDER the paving - Gjensidige denies connection to other cases → the same assessor handled Cases 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the same area
6. GDPR Breach Gjensidige's Compliance Officer sent the password 'Gjensidige2026!' in a plaintext email — a direct violation of GDPR Article 32 on secure processing of personal data.
Key Issues
- Retroactive mandate change: Mandate altered 16 days after inspection
- 229-day processing time: Insurance Act § 18 violated
- Catch-22: Municipal order required that Gjensidige acknowledges is unobtainable
- Precedent ignored: Relevant Board decisions not addressed
- Self-contradictions: Gjensidige's own documents contradict their rejection
- GDPR breach: Password sent in plaintext by Compliance Officer
Outcome
Complained to the Danish Insurance Complaints Board. Awaiting decision. 0 DKK paid.
Photo Evidence
9 images document the damage in this case.
