Part of a roof comes loose during severe weather, but your insurer disputes a storm or cites a construction defect. Two questions then matter: does the weather meet your policy’s definition, and did that event cause the claimed damage? This guide concerns Dutch insurance disputes after storm damage around a home. No universal wind-speed requirement decides your claim without checking the policy. For substantial damage, several possible causes or a stalled expert dispute, an insurance lawyer can help. Where collapse or loose parts threaten, appropriate emergency assistance must assess the situation; do not climb onto the roof yourself to collect evidence.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Read the storm definition in your own terms
Request the policy schedule, general conditions and special home conditions applicable when the damage occurred. Find the definition of storm and provisions concerning the damaged component. A fence, awning, garden object and roof may have different rules. Also record restrictions during renovation, vacancy or special usage situations where relevant to your home.
Some terms specify a threshold of fourteen metres per second. Kifid decision 2024-0783 applied such a provision to a damaged awning. That number is an example from a particular policy, not a general statutory threshold for every insurance. In a dispute, ask which measurements, period and definition the insurer uses. Discuss unclear wording with a legal adviser and do not automatically assume a meteorological term means precisely the same as the chosen policy concept.
2. Connect wind data to the time and loss address
Make a chronology of the last time the component was intact, probable damage time and discovery. Explicitly state when timing is only an estimate. Ask which weather data support the insurer’s decision and whether they fit your location and period. A remote measurement or general regional overview sometimes requires further explanation.
In the Kifid case mentioned, the committee found the assertion that winds were strong insufficient against the KNMI data cited by the insurer. A technician’s statement that strong winds could cause the damage likewise did not prove a storm under that policy. Therefore collect focused information about the address and likely time. For a local weather incident, an expert can assess which additional data matter; one photograph of damage in another town does not answer that question.
3. Also prove the connection between wind and damage
Have an expert describe what came loose, how the component was attached and which traces fit the proposed cause. Before-and-after photographs, maintenance documents and repair company findings can help. Distinguish new breakage, old damage and a defect only revealed by the incident. Without technical explanation, a replacement estimate does not automatically show how the component was damaged or which part was already defective.
A fictional example: after a storm, part of a fence lies on the ground and one post proves previously deteriorated. The investigation question is not only whether there was a storm but what roles wind, attachment and deterioration played in the specific damage. Ask the report to explain that relationship. Avoid identifying a certain cause yourself while the expert remains uncertain. Your lawyer can then assess how the findings relate to cover and an alleged exclusion.
4. Assess multiple causes and existing defects separately
Storm cases may mention wind, rain, rot and construction problems together. Ask whether the insurer disputes a storm, applies an exclusion or only rejects improvement costs. These are different decisions. For each damaged component, request the technical fact advanced to support it. Not every indication of age automatically answers the cause of all damage. Conversely, a storm does not automatically make remedying all existing defects an insured repair.
Kifid decision 2023-0999 concerned an owners’ association also seeking repairs to defective building parts that had not blown away. The committee held that a storm revealing the inherent defect did not provide cover for that under those terms. Read the decision within that policy and those facts. It does illustrate why repairs to actual incident damage and improvements to remaining defects require separate estimates and legal assessment, particularly for extensive facade or roof works.
5. Record emergency measures without unsafe investigation
Have dangerous hanging parts, damaged structures or serious leakage assessed by authorised assistance or a suitably expert company. Report the damage and ask how temporary protection and inspection are coordinated. Keep instructions, work sheets and explanations of why measures were immediately necessary. Where possible, have involved professionals add available photographs. Do not climb or move material yourself to win an argument with the insurer.
Before non-urgent final repairs, ask whether the insurer still wants an inspection and which parts must remain available. Separate temporary protection, removal of danger and full repairs financially. The need for an action and the extent of insurance reimbursement are separate questions. Record who instructs an emergency company and which rates or cost arrangements were agreed. If waiting could cause further damage, seek a specific workable agreement and document what you reported about this.
6. Check the deductible and classification of events
Examine the contractual storm deductible and any special rules for glass, garden or possessions. No fixed amount applies to every storm claim. Request the full calculation showing loss amount, any value adjustment and deduction used. If an insurer treats different damage as separate events, have it explain the policy ground and factual division. Several damaged components do not automatically mean several independent events, but the contract wording remains relevant.
Interpolis describes specific treatment of combined storm and water damage on its own product page, applying a deductible at most once. This is exclusively a product example. Ask how your own policy assesses the connection when water also enters through a damaged roof. Record both the original wind damage and subsequent water damage, with timing and costs. Check that the handler substantively assessed both items before accepting a payment as full settlement.
7. Prepare a focused request for your lawyer
Combine the policy version, written rejection, wind data, technical reports and itemised repair quotations. Add a brief chronology and overview of accepted and disputed amounts. Highlight the actual question: insufficient local wind evidence, an incorrect causation conclusion, repair of an existing defect or repeated deductible. Request reassessment on that ground. A defined file lets a lawyer assess more quickly whether additional technical evidence is worth its cost.
Have complaint and limitation periods checked while investigation and repairs continue. Discuss an internal complaint, possible Kifid handling or court proceedings with attention to access, costs and binding consequences. A separate claim against a contractor or another party may merit investigation but does not automatically follow from an insurance rejection. Do not sign full and final discharge while the items being settled remain unclear. Strong substantiation may change a decision but does not guarantee every storm-related cost is insured.
Frequently asked questions
Is force seven wind always required for storm cover?
Check the definition in your own terms. A numerical threshold in an example policy or decision is not a universal statutory requirement for every insurance claim.
Is a photograph of fallen trees sufficient evidence?
It may support the case, but time, location, policy definition and connection with your own damage remain important. Ask which weather data and technical findings the insurer disputes.
Can the insurer charge two deductibles for storm and rain?
That depends on your contract and the division of events. Request a reasoned calculation. Another insurer’s treatment of combined damage does not automatically apply to your policy.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Kifid — bindend advies 2024-0783, volledige uitspraak Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Kifid — bindend advies 2023-0999, volledige uitspraak Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Interpolis — Stormschade woning, uitsluitend productvoorbeeld Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Insurance law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology