Case 6: Sewage and Rats

Violations

Case Description (EN)

The Claimant discovered a break in the private sewer line on the property. Syddjurs Municipality issued an order for repair. There were also signs of rat activity connected to the damaged pipes.

The damages are directly related to the same area as Case 3 (foundation cracks), Case 4 (asbestos), and Case 5 (basement floor) — all in a 2×3 meter zone at the building's foundation.

Gjensidige's Handling

Gjensidige fully rejected the case on January 22, 2026 — only 28 days after filing. The rejection was remarkable for several reasons:

1. Municipal Order Dismissed as "Standard Letter" Syddjurs Municipality issued a formal order to repair the sewer line. Gjensidige dismissed this order as a "standard letter" without real significance — despite municipal orders being legally binding.

2. Cost Shifting to Customer Gjensidige required the Claimant to personally pay for a CCTV sewer inspection (approx. 5,000-10,000 DKK) as a prerequisite to even evaluating the case. The insurer effectively transferred investigation costs to the insured party.

3. No Physical Inspection Gjensidige made their decision without sending anyone to physically inspect the damages. The rejection was based entirely on documents.

Key Issues

1. Municipal order ignored: A legally binding municipal order dismissed as a "standard letter"
2. Cost shifting: Customer must pay for investigations that should be the insurer's responsibility
3. No inspection: Decision made without physical visit
4. Cross-case fragmentation: Part of the same physical damage complex as Cases 3, 4, and 5
5. Catch-22: Gjensidige demands evidence (CCTV inspection) the customer must pay for — while refusing to acknowledge the evidence the municipality has already provided (the order)

The Full Picture

Case 6 illustrates the complete pattern: A 245,000 DKK claim rejected without inspection, with a municipal order ignored, and with demands that the customer fund the investigation Gjensidige should be conducting.

Outcome

Fully rejected. 0 DKK paid on a 245,000 DKK claim. Insurance Board complaint under consideration.

Photo Evidence

3 images document the damage in this case.

Sewer damage — documentation of broken pipe connection

Visible sewer sink-hole at the property

Basement plan marking the sewer break location