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. The Assessor's Mandate Was Changed After the Inspection (Severity 10/10) The assessor's original brief was an "inspection." 16 days after the inspection, the mandate was changed to "asbestos mapping" in Gjensidige's case system. This changes the basis of the report after the fact — in my assessment contrary to good insurance practice.

2. Long Processing Time — 229 Days, approx. 178 of Them in Silence From the claim filing on 21 May 2025 to the decision on 5 January 2026: 229 days. From 4 July to 29 December 2025 (approx. 178 days), the Claimant received no communication from Gjensidige. In my assessment, this is contrary to good practice — and to FAL § 25, which requires the insurer, within 3 months of notification, to inform the insured of the right to claim partial payment under FAL § 24(1), 2nd sentence.

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 any connection to the other cases → the cases in the same area were handled separately

6. GDPR breach (my assessment) A member of Gjensidige's compliance department sent a document password in a plaintext email — in my assessment contrary to GDPR Article 32 on secure processing of personal data. The password followed a predictable pattern (company name + year). The matter has been reported to the Danish Data Protection Agency.

Key Issues

1. Mandate change: Brief altered 16 days after inspection
2. 229 days to decision — approx. 178 of them in silence: in my assessment contrary to FAL § 25 and good practice
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 (my assessment): Password sent in plaintext via Gjensidige's compliance department — reported to the Danish Data Protection Agency.

Outcome

Finally rejected on 8 June 2026; the case has been handed to a lawyer. 0 DKK paid.