Claim rejected by contradicting yourselves

We came home from our Christmas holiday to find our floor tiles had lifted in our lounge and entrance area. According to our house sitter, we had had a massive storm and the floor had flooded due to the rain coming in under the front door and from a ceiling leak in our bedroom. I called Standard bank and asked the claims lady if it is something that can be claimed. She said yes, if it is due to water damage. GREAT! Assessor was sent out the next day and he arrived during a thunder storm so was able to see that the water was indeed coming through the front door. He agreed that the tiles were lifting due to the water damage and even tried to set up a date for replacement as he didnt see this being a problem to receive an approved status. 3 days later, after calling daily for any form of progress, someone in the claims department finally got hold of the assessors report and quote. Here I was informed that due to water not causing ceramic tiles to lift immediately, but over an undisclosed period of time, the damage could not have been caused by the storm in question and therefore my claim was rejected as this is therefore a workmanship issue. Workmanship that was done years ago. Could someone please inform me of this undisclosed period of time it takes for water to seep through the grout and lift the contact adhesive causing my tiles to lift. I would like to know if this is deemed as days, weeks or months. Why did all my tiles happen to lift simultaneously at the same moment, a couple days after the storm that caused the leaking ceiling and flooded floor. Your policy states that all claims need to be made within 30 days of an incident. This we did. If we had rain, daily over a period of a week (which I understand JHB had some serious storms over the week of Christmas) does this count as a period of time? Another issue I have is that the assessor sent out by standard bank, lift said loose tiles and did not replace them properly so now not only are my tiles loose, they are also lifted which is not only unsightly but also hazardous as one can cut themselves when walking over them if they crack further. Who is liable for that damage made by your, Standard banks, assessor. Words cannot describe the level of disappointment I have with your explanation. If your theory that water cant lift a ceramic tile (****** the grout and adhesive) why was I told to log the claim in the first place and then contradict yourselves by stating that water damage cant lift tiles. Should I rather have stated that the water lifted the grout. Was it a wording mistake on my side. We have all seen what water does to grout and cement so maybe its my fault for not wording it correctly.