# Leaking dishwasher hose: 'gradual damage' proved to be no valid argument

> A family in the Rotterdam region came home from holiday to a flooded ground floor. The insurer initially rejected the claim on the basis of gradual damage. After technical investigation, full cover was acknowledged, including alternative accommodation.

*Gepubliceerd: 2025-06-02*

---

## The situation

A family of four lives in a terraced house in the Rotterdam region. During a two-week holiday, the supply hose to the dishwasher broke. The water flowed unnoticed for some time onto the kitchen floor and spread to the adjoining living room and hall. When the family returned, part of the ground floor was under water. The wooden floor had buckled, the laminate in the hall had swollen, and parts of the kitchen units were beyond repair. Moisture had also penetrated the meter cupboard.

The family reported the damage to their contents and buildings insurer immediately. The total damage was estimated overall at around EUR 55,000 for restoration, plus costs for temporary accommodation, since the house was uninhabitable for the first few weeks.

## The insurer's initial response

The insurer sent an expert to the site, who concluded that the rupture in the hose had probably begun to drip for some time before the damage was discovered. The report concluded that this was a case of "gradually infiltrating moisture", which under the policy conditions would be excluded. On that basis the claim was largely rejected. Only a small reimbursement for cleaning work was offered.

For the family this outcome was unacceptable: they had reported an ordinary hose burst, experienced as a sudden incident, and they had had no indication whatsoever before the holiday that anything was wrong with the dishwasher.

## Our role

Krantz & Polak Resolve was engaged for a second opinion. We set three things in motion in parallel.

First, a technical investigation, together with an independent installation engineer, into the actual rupture in the hose. This showed that it was a sudden tear in a still relatively new hose, probably caused by pressure surges in the water supply. There was no question of wear over a long period, and the rupture was unambiguously of recent date.

Next, we requested the meter readings from the water company. The consumption pattern showed that the high consumption only really increased in the last days before the family's return. That supported the contention that the leak had lasted at most a few days, not weeks.

Finally, we set out a careful interpretation of the policy conditions. The exclusion for "gradual damage" is, in these policies, intended for situations such as slowly rotting woodwork or roof gutters leaking for years — not for a sudden rupture the consequences of which only become visible later, during the occupants' absence. That interpretation was supported by reference to comparable rulings in comparable disputes.

## The outcome

After submission of the counter-expertise report and a joint meeting, the insurer withdrew its position on gradual damage. The claim was recognised in full.

The final payout came in at approximately EUR 64,500: about EUR 53,000 for restoration of floors, kitchen units and decorative work, and a further almost EUR 11,500 for six weeks of temporary accommodation plus storage of contents. With this the family was able to have the house fully restored and received the certainty that there would be no residual damage to be borne at their own expense.

For the family, recognition — alongside the money — was above all a relief: a rejection on a technicality quickly feels like a personal reproach, while the heart of the matter was simply a broken hose.