The Court of Appeal has dismissed Lloyds Insurance Company SA’s appeal over an order to repair roof and wall damage at a Portmarnock home and pay the owners €20,000 compensation.
The appeal concerned a Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) decision directing the insurer to repair damage resulting from a defect in the home’s roof structure, including correctly positioning the water tanks, and to pay compensation for inconvenience. The High Court had affirmed that decision in May 2022. The Court of Appeal’s judgment, delivered on 22 May 2023, leaves that outcome in place.
The owners, Joanna Donnelly and Harm Luijkx, bought the house in 2006 as their principal private residence. They noticed cracking after moving in. The lower-wall damage was attributed to heave associated with pyrite in fill; the upper-wall and ceiling cracking was attributed to a sagging roof that pushed out the upper walls. The insurer admitted the pyrite-related claim and the house was remediated, but it declined the separate roof claim.
The dispute centred on whether the policy covered damage caused when water tanks in the attic were inadequately supported. The insurer argued that the tanks and their supports were not part of the insured structure, and that defective installation rather than a defect in the covered structure caused the damage. The FSPO concluded that the roof structure should have been designed and built to support the tanks and that the resulting damage was covered. The insurer disputed that interpretation and challenged the FSPO’s statutory grounds for upholding the complaint.
The Court of Appeal considered three certified questions of law. It said the FSPO had wrongly invoked one statutory ground, which applies where conduct was in accordance with law but nonetheless unreasonable or unjust. However, the court found that this did not mean the FSPO had decided the insurer acted lawfully, and it did not undermine the decision’s other grounds. The court also rejected the insurer’s arguments about the meaning of “Structure” under the policy and the High Court’s use of a reasonable-person interpretation.
The court held that the High Court had not made the error alleged in the first question and that the insurer had not established error on the second or third. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not itself set out a separate repair timetable. On costs, it said the FSPO was entitled to its appeal costs, while allowing the insurer 14 days from electronic delivery to file a written submission if it wished to argue otherwise, with the FSPO then allowed 14 days to reply.