A rejected claim is the most painful experience in insurance – and most rejections aren't arbitrary decisions, but one of a handful of recurring causes. Knowing them lets you rule out most of that risk in advance. This article goes through the most common causes – candidly, and with a way to prevent each one.
The most common cause: the claim relates to damage that the policy terms exclude – rectifying your own defective work, contractual liability taken on beyond the statutory standard, or penalty-type items. Prevention: know the list of exclusions before you take out cover (see the exclusions map), and lift critical exclusions through an extension where possible (see this article).
The damage is real, and liability exists – but the work that caused it isn't on the policy's list of insured activities. This is typical for a business whose range of services is expanding: the new service has already launched, but nobody reported the change. Prevention: keep your list of insured activities up to date (see reporting changes).
The policy terms set notification deadlines – for claims themselves, and often for circumstances that might lead to one. Putting it off in the hope that “it'll just blow over” is, on its own, a rejection risk. Prevention: report immediately on the insurer's claims line, checking in even when you only suspect a claim might follow (see first steps).
There's no way to prove what happened, when, or how much damage resulted – and the insurer can only pay out on facts that are evidenced. Prevention: a documentation routine – work log, photos, handover record, and, when damage occurs, the right order of recording (see the documentation article, checklist).
Under claims-made cover, work carried out before the retroactive date, or a claim asserted after the policy has ended, falls outside cover; under other structures, it's damage caused outside the policy period. Prevention: understand your time limits of cover, and preserve continuity when switching insurer (see the key concepts article, the switching article).
First step: understand the reasoning precisely – which clause it refers to, and how that relates to the facts of the case. Second: compare your own documents against the reasoning – is there a fact or a document the decision didn't take into account? Third: if the case is disputable, I try to make sure you don't have to argue it alone – as your broker, I help with the discussion, where I can (see stuck and disputed cases). And the lessons learned are worth the most at your next renewal: good cover is what prevents rejection in the first place (see policy review).
On first read, a rejection can feel like a brick wall – but it has a structure, and knowing that structure is the key to your next move. Look for three elements: the policy clause it cites (which section it's rejecting under), the facts it establishes (what the insurer treats as having happened), and the link between the two (why the facts fall under the cited clause). Disputable cases are almost always disputable at the second or third element: the facts are incomplete (there's a document that wasn't taken into account), or the classification is questionable. Arguing with the first element – the content of the clause itself – rarely gets anywhere. This structural reading is what determines whether it's worth requesting another round – and that's exactly where help from the broker comes in.
A question tailored to your own trade? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
Free of charge, no obligation – at the end, you'll see exactly your options and the next step.