After a rejected claim, it sometimes emerges that your adviser failed to discuss a risk, pass on a change or recommend suitable insurance. Whether the adviser is liable requires more than establishing that the policy does not pay out. First investigate the engagement, specific error and its consequences. A lawyer can help compare your actual situation with what would probably have happened with careful advice. This explanation concerns Dutch insurance advisers and intermediaries; distinguish the role of your own insurer from theirs.
Sources (3)
On this page
1. Establish who received which instructions
Collect the engagement confirmation, service information document, any subscriptions and invoices. Record who advised you, who submitted the application and who later became your contact. A trading name may have changed or a portfolio been transferred. If unclear, ask which legal entity performed the work concerned and during which period. Do not direct your allegation solely at the name now displayed above the customer portal.
Then describe the service you expected: only arranging a specified policy, comparing risks, annual aftercare or help with a claim. Find the specific agreement on this. A paid service package may be relevant, but does not automatically prove every change had to be continuously detected. Also describe verbal undertakings, giving dates, people present and messages supporting your recollection.
2. Specify the professional error
Article 7:401 of the Dutch Civil Code imposes a duty of care in performing an engagement. Insurance cases examine what a reasonably competent and reasonably acting intermediary should have done. What information was known and which questions should reasonably have been asked matter. Therefore identify a specific omitted action, such as asking about an outbuilding, rather than simply writing that you were incorrectly insured.
In Kifid 2020-239, when switching buildings insurance, the adviser should have investigated which structures needed insurance. The fact that the sheds did not appear on the old policy schedule was insufficient reason in that case not to ask about them. The example illustrates that a duty to assess requirements may go beyond copying existing details. It does not guarantee that every missing object results in liability.
3. Reconstruct the information you provided yourself
Keep application forms, completed questionnaires and emails about building use, previous claims or changes in your circumstances. Honestly indicate which information you did and did not provide. A file containing only favourable messages gives an unreliable picture of what the adviser could know. Also include warnings received, for example about an exclusion, inspection condition or consequences of a changed business activity.
Kifid 2025-0560 emphasises that customers must read documentation received and report errors or missing information. In that case no breach of the duty of care was established, partly because of the intermediary’s repeated information requests and the details the customer provided. Therefore separately have it assessed what you should have reported and whether the adviser nevertheless had reason to ask further questions or warn you.
4. Investigate which cover was actually available
For a claim for missed insurance cover, investigate whether suitable insurance was available at the time. A current website offering an attractive product does not answer that historical question. Where possible, collect acceptance rules, quotations and correspondence about alternatives from that time. Ask an expert what information an insurer would then have required and which exclusions or preventive requirements would probably have applied.
Also investigate whether you would probably have chosen that insurance and could afford the premium or mandatory measures. If the alternative was available only with a much higher deductible or after structural alterations, include this in the comparison. Record why you chose particular costs or restrictions at the time. A later statement that you would have paid any price may be unconvincing without support in the file.
5. Separate error, causation and loss
An established advice error does not automatically mean the adviser must pay the rejected claim amount. Compare the actual financial consequences with the likely situation without the error. Account for the deductible, insured limits, excluded loss and premium you would have paid for the alternative. Prepare a calculation for each loss item with invoices and an explanation of its connection with the alleged advice failure.
In Kifid 2020-239, a breach of the duty of care was accepted, but no resulting loss was demonstrated. The insurability of the sheds and the alleged alternative of earlier demolition were insufficiently substantiated. This distinction matters practically: alongside another policy, investigate any other measures you could and would actually have taken. Clearly distinguish a possibility not yet proved from a substantiated financial difference.
6. Request the file and a response through a focused complaint
Ask your adviser for relevant advice reports, the risk assessment, application details and recorded warnings. Then state in writing which action you believe was omitted and when you discovered this. Allow an opportunity for a substantive response and ask what solution is proposed. Keep original files and maintain your own list of missing elements. A complaint need not yet contain a final calculation if further investigation is demonstrably necessary.
Nevertheless describe as specifically as possible what you already know and the loss items you provisionally identify. If in doubt, do not wait for a complete file before having possible complaint or limitation periods assessed. Asking the adviser to notify their professional indemnity insurer may be useful, but that insurer’s involvement does not prove an admission. Obtain written confirmation of undertakings about handling or compensation and check who makes them.
7. Coordinate the cover dispute and the claim against the adviser
Sometimes an objection to the insurer runs alongside this because you believe the policy does provide cover. In that case have the formulation of both positions assessed. The insurer may rely on an incorrect clause while the adviser also communicated inadequately. Simply accepting a rejection and then pursuing the adviser can unnecessarily complicate evidence and solutions. Clearly distinguish the parties involved and the performance requested from each.
For an initial meeting with a lawyer, bring the engagement, advice documents, application, policy, rejection and loss calculation. Formulate a specific question: could this business activity have been insured if the adviser had processed my email properly? Then discuss evidence, costs and the appropriate complaint or litigation route. Also have the scope of a proposed settlement assessed before signing, especially if other claims or parties remain involved.
Frequently asked questions
Must my adviser pay as soon as my insurance does not pay out?
No. First investigate whether the adviser breached the engagement or duty of care and whether this caused loss. A justified exclusion may also apply to the insurance you could have taken out with careful advice.
How do I prove I would have chosen different insurance?
Collect quotations from the time, risk preferences, budget information and messages about alternatives. Have both the availability of cover and your probable choice and associated costs investigated.
Can I also object to the insurer at the same time?
That may result in two connected disputes. Have the positions and deadlines coordinated. A complaint about advice does not replace preserving your rights against the insurer.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Kifid 2020-239 — volledige officiële uitspraak Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Kifid 2025-0560 — volledige officiële uitspraak Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Kifid Kennis — zorgplicht verzekeringstussenpersoon 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