Gjensidige

Case 5: Basement Floor Buckling

Insurance Board — complaint filed
Claim #: 525346 • Filed: 2025-09-25 • Severity: 7/10
13.560 kr. Claimed
0 kr. Paid
3 Handlers

Violations

Cross case fragmentation Inadequate inspection Dismissing expert evidence Handler rotation

Case Description (EN)

Upon removing fixed carpeting in the basement, the Claimant discovered severe cracks and buckling in the basement floor. These were not ordinary shrinkage cracks but active deformation damage.

An independent contractor physically inspected the conditions and concluded the damage was caused by external pressure against the foundation — likely from soil movement or water pressure. The damage was hidden under the carpets and could not have been detected during normal inspection.

Gjensidige's Handling

Gjensidige rejected the case on January 21, 2026. They classified the cracks as "ordinary shrinkage cracks" — directly contradicting the independent contractor's assessment.

Gjensidige repeatedly requested additional documentation for the cause of damage, even after receiving photos, the contractor's written assessment, and the property condition report.

Two independent contractors asked to provide repair quotes both refused to take on the work solely due to the critical condition of the basement wall and floor.

Key Issues

  1. Expert evidence dismissed: Independent contractor's assessment ignored
  2. Cross-case fragmentation: The basement floor is physically connected to Case 3 (foundation cracks), Case 4 (asbestos), and Case 6 (sewage) — all in the same 2×3 meter area
  3. Three handlers: Different handler at each stage
  4. Professionals refuse the job: When two contractors refuse to even quote due to severity, it should trigger an inspection

Outcome

Complaint filed with the Danish Insurance Complaints Board (version 9, 17 appendices). Awaiting decision. 0 DKK paid on a 13,560 DKK claim.

Photo Evidence

21 images document the damage in this case.

→ See all photo evidence
← Case 4: Asbestos in the Soil All cases Case 6: Sewage and Rats →