Claim Rejected on Semantics, Not Substance

I am extremely disappointed with CIB Insurance's decision to reject my claim.

The rejection appears to be based on the fact that I described the cause as a "burst pipe" in my claim submission, while the plumber's report later referred to a water leak that was not visible.

As a homeowner and policyholder, I am not a plumber or technical expert. I used the term "burst pipe" in good faith to describe what I believed was the cause of the water damage. To an ordinary person, terms such as burst pipe, water leak, or pipe failure are often used interchangeably when water escapes from a plumbing system and causes damage.

What I cannot understand is how a claim can be rejected because a qualified plumber used different technical terminology after inspecting the problem. The plumber's report does not dispute that there was a plumbing failure and resulting water damage. It simply provides a more technical description than that used by a layperson.

It seems unreasonable for an insurer to expect policyholders to accurately diagnose plumbing faults before an expert has even attended the property, and even more unreasonable to reject a claim based on that distinction. At present, this feels like a claim being rejected on semantics rather than substance.