Case 4: Asbestos in the Soil

Violations

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 A member of Gjensidige's compliance department sent a document password in a plaintext email — a direct violation of GDPR Article 32 on secure processing of personal data. The password followed a predictable pattern (company name + year), indicating systematic practice of weak passwords.

Key Issues

1. Retroactive mandate change: Mandate altered 16 days after inspection
2. 229-day processing time: Insurance Act § 18 violated
3. Catch-22: Municipal order required that Gjensidige acknowledges is unobtainable
4. Precedent ignored: Relevant Board decisions not addressed
5. Self-contradictions: Gjensidige's own documents contradict their rejection
6. GDPR breach: Password sent in plaintext via Gjensidige's compliance department — following a predictable pattern (company name + year), suggesting systematic practice.

Outcome

Complained to the Danish Insurance Complaints Board. Awaiting decision. 0 DKK paid.