Shoba Patel & Anor v HDI Global Specialty SE

In an insurance claim, the insured must prove on the balance of probabilities that a covered peril caused the claimed damage and that the damage occurred during the policy period. Evidence that damage exists, or that one possible cause is more likely than a single competing cause, is insufficient where other possible causes remain and the evidence does not establish the insured cause as more probable overall. Circumstantial evidence may establish cause and timing when assessed as a whole.

A mother and son claimed an indemnity from their home insurer for damage to their property. The mother was the named insured and legal owner; her son claimed a beneficial interest. They alleged damage from a February 2014 storm and subsidence during the policy period. The court tried liability only, with the central questions being whether the storm damaged the front or rear gable and whether subsidence caused damage during the period of cover.

1. The claim succeeded only in respect of storm damage to the front gable. The claimants did not prove storm damage to the rear gable or subsidence damage during the policy period.

2. On causation, the judge drew from Loveluck-Edwards v Ideal Developments Ltd et al. [2012] EWHC 716 (Ch) and Rhesa Shipping SA v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948 the principle that showing one identified cause to be more likely than another does not prove that cause where other unidentified causes remain possible. The evidence as a whole must establish the claimant’s cause on the balance of probabilities.

3. The front gable was tilted forwards, the tilt was first observed after the February 2014 storm, tiles were found in the front garden, and the gable was unrestrained. Those circumstances supported a finding that wind suction during the storm caused the damage. The rear gable was restrained, and the claimants did not connect a hairline crack first observed in 2025 to the storm.

4. The subsidence claim failed. The soil had a low plasticity index and was unlikely to shrink significantly. The property’s hairline cracks were not characteristic of subsidence and could reflect seasonal movement of its shallow foundations. A possible leak from a minor rainwater drain, the lounge floor’s tilt, and the later photographs did not prove either subsidence or its occurrence during the policy period. The evidence also did not establish that the kitchen floor, boundary wall or garage had sustained subsidence damage during that period.

5. The court was not satisfied that automatic strike-out for non-payment of the trial fee applied, because the court’s notice had initially gone to the wrong recipient. In any event, the judge would have granted relief from sanction: the fee was paid, the delay caused no prejudice, and the notice error was the primary reason for the delay. The late application to amend the claim value was refused because it lacked a good explanation, was unnecessary to permit a higher award under CPR 16.3(7), and risked delay and wasted costs. The court left consequential orders for written submissions and a possible short supplementary judgment.

This was a first-instance liability trial. The claim was issued in February 2020. A trial listed for October 2021 was vacated when the proceedings appeared likely to be tried with a related claim concerning the neighbouring property; that claim settled before trial. Consequential orders remain for written submissions.