The Claim File
The policyholder's letter, the assessor's report, and the memorandum that followed. This is the file from which the Company's instruction to the Hadrian Institute — to make the cat out of materials that do not catch fire — is understood to have grown, and the claim that the exclusion's 2025 revision followed.
Distribution: the policyholder's file; the claims registry; underwriting; the Hadrian Institute, Nuneaton (copy, with the animal). The documents are reproduced as filed. Nothing has been corrected. The Company's position is that nothing required correction.
The animal, the device, and the exclusion.
1 · The event
This report records the investigation of a fire event at the insured premises, Rotherham, on the evening of 13 June 2025, and the Company's determination in respect of the claim arising from it.
The event involved the ignition of a domestic shorthair cat (“the animal”) following a thermal anomaly in a satellite television receiver (“the device”), and the subsequent ignition of secondary materials in the lounge.
At the time of the event the animal was seated on the device, which is mounted on a shelf adjacent to the television. The device — a Bush SDTR-101, in service since 2009 — sustained a thermal event consistent with prolonged operation with restricted ventilation. The animal's integument ignited at the point of contact. The animal then departed the shelf at speed and in a consistent direction, and came into contact with the lounge curtains, which ignited. The fire spread to the rug and to the west end of the sofa before being extinguished by the policyholder at approximately 18:22, using a household extinguisher.
No persons were injured. The animal was not injured. The device was destroyed.
2 · Chronology
The chronology is compiled from the policyholder's account, the policyholder's claim letter of 15 June, and inspection of the premises and the device on 14 June.
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
18:10 | Policyholder switches on the television and leaves the lounge to prepare tea. The animal is on the shelf beside the television. The policyholder states this as a matter of routine: the animal occupies the shelf whenever the television is in use. The Company has no reason to doubt it. |
18:14 (approx.) | Thermal event in the device. Ignition of the animal's integument at the point of contact. |
18:14–18:16 | Animal departs the shelf at speed; contact with the lounge curtains (north wall); secondary ignition. |
18:16–18:20 | Fire develops in the curtains and rug; extends to the west end of the sofa. |
18:20 (approx.) | Policyholder returns from the kitchen. Animal observed on the hearth, facing the curtains. |
18:22 | Fire extinguished with the household extinguisher. |
18:35 | Animal observed on the shelf, at its usual station. The device had by this time been disconnected. |
3 · Assessor's notes
- The device. Examined on 14 June. The ventilation grille was found to be substantially obstructed by accumulated fibre, consistent with an animal seated on the device over a prolonged period. The device's surface temperature at the point of contact cannot be reconstructed. The Company notes that the device was warm; that it was designed to be warm; and that the manufacturer's guidance does not warn against the presence of animals. The Company has not contacted the manufacturer to ask why.
- The animal. Examined on 14 June, at the premises, by a veterinary surgeon at the Company's request. No injuries were identified. The animal's whiskers are singed at the tips. The animal did not permit the examination to be completed, and the veterinary surgeon did not insist.
- Prior claim. The policyholder submitted a prior claim under the same policy on 24 June 2024 (ref. HFDU-C-070-24), declined under the same clause. The animal is understood to be the same animal. The Company has not been able to confirm this with the animal.
- Age of the animal. The policyholder's letter states that the animal has been in the household for nine years. The prior claim file records the animal as approximately four. The Company has not sought to reconcile the two accounts, and does not intend to; the age of the animal is not material to the determination under Clause 5.3. The animal, for its part, has not offered an account of its age, and the Company has not required one.
- Name and temperament. The animal's name and temperament are not recorded in any Company record. The Company has not previously required them, and does not propose to require them now.
- Schedule of loss. The policyholder's schedule comprises five items, including an item “dignity” at nil value. The item is not disputed.
4 · Determination
The claim is declined. The exclusion engages on three limbs: the ignition of the Companion Animal itself; the ignition of other property by, in, or around the Companion Animal; and an ignition occurring while the Companion Animal was present. The Company's position is that the clause applies irrespective of the condition of the device, the behaviour of the animal, or the policyholder's understanding of either.
5 · Recommendation
The Company's exposure to this class of event is structural. The exclusion operates; the policyholder's expectation of cover does not. The Company has declined two claims of this kind within thirteen months, and has on each occasion received correspondence indicating that the wording was not understood until it had been applied. The Company therefore recommends:
- that the policy wording be revised, so that the exclusion's scope is more fully expressed;
- that the underlying question — whether an animal of this kind can be underwritten at all — be referred to a competent body; and
- that the animal be made available for examination. An animal that has ignited once is, on the evidence of this file, an animal that may ignite again, and the Company's position in respect of any future claim would be materially improved by knowing more about the animal than it currently does. The Company currently knows that the animal is a cat. It does not know the animal's age, name, or temperament, and the animal has not volunteered any of these.
The animal referred to in this report was subsequently loaned to the Hadrian Institute, Nuneaton, and designated Test Article TA-3 (intake 14 July 2025; see Annex A, HIB-MAT-2026-0147-A, Session A-001). The designation postdates this report and has been applied to the file retrospectively, at the request of the Institute, so that the file may be read alongside HIB-MAT-2026-0147.
The letter, as received.
The letter below is reproduced in full. The Company has corrected nothing. The Company's position is that the letter required no correction, and that any correction would have diminished it.
Rotherham
S60 3
Hartfield House, 14 Wilmot Street
Derby
Re: Household policy — fire damage, 13 June 2025
I am writing to claim under my household policy in respect of the fire which occurred in my lounge on the evening of Friday 13 June.
I have been asked to describe the events, and I will describe them in the order in which they happened.
At approximately 6.10pm I switched on the television and went into the kitchen to make tea. When I returned, at approximately 6.20pm, the curtains were on fire, the rug was on fire, and the end of the sofa was on fire. The cat was standing on the hearth, watching the curtains, in the manner of a person watching a fire.
I have had this cat for nine years. In that time it has never previously been on fire.
The cat was sitting on the satellite receiver, which is on the shelf beside the television. The receiver is a Bush SDTR-101. I purchased it in 2009. It has always been warm. The cat has sat on it most evenings since it came to us. On the evening of 13 June the receiver became warmer than usual, and the cat caught fire. I do not know the exact sequence of events, because the cat does not discuss such matters, and I was in the kitchen.
I understand that the curtains caught fire when the cat left the shelf at speed and passed through the lounge. I was not present for this, but I have no reason to doubt the account, which is consistent with the cat's general approach to things.
I extinguished the fire with the extinguisher from the hall, which I have had for six years and have never previously used. The extinguisher worked. I would like the record to show that one item in my household has now performed correctly in an emergency.
The cat is otherwise entirely well. The vet has examined it and found no injuries. The vet has asked me to inform you that the cat's whiskers are singed, and that the cat appears to be entirely unaffected. The cat has not mentioned the fire. The cat has resumed sitting on the shelf. The receiver is in a bag by the bin.
I apologise to my neighbours on the cat's behalf, and on my own. The cat has not asked me to.
I attach my schedule of loss.
| 1. Curtains, lounge, north wall (pair, purchased 2016) | £180.00 |
| 2. Rug, lounge (wool, purchased 2014) | £240.00 |
| 3. Sofa (one (1), purchased 2018) | £620.00 |
| 4. Satellite receiver, Bush SDTR-101 (purchased 2009; the cause of the fire) | £75.00 |
| 5. Dignity (remainder) | £0.00 |
| Total | £1,115.00 |
With regard to item 5: I am not itemising this because I expect to be paid for it. I am itemising it because it was damaged, and because I would like the claim to be a complete account. The cat's dignity is undamaged. It has not asked about mine.
I am aware that my previous claim, in June of last year, was declined, and that the reason given was that the policy does not cover events in connection with the cat. I have read the policy this time. I understand that Clause 5.3 excludes any loss arising from the ignition of, by, or in the proximity of a companion animal, and that the exclusion applies whether or not the animal caused the fire, and whether or not the animal was present. I note that the cat was present, which is the state in which it has spent the majority of the last nine years.
I am writing to you anyway. The sofa is in the garden, and I would like to know what the policy is for.
The receiver was faulty. The fire began in the receiver, not in the cat. The cat was sitting on the receiver because the receiver is warm, which is what receivers are for, from the cat's point of view. If the receiver had not caught fire, the cat would not have caught fire, and the curtains would not have caught fire, and this claim would not be necessary. I am claiming for the receiver on those grounds. I do not expect to be paid for the receiver. I would like the claim to be complete.
I would be grateful for your consideration, and for your advice as to what the policy covers, so that I can decide what to keep in the house.
The date, I am aware, was a Friday the thirteenth. I mention it for completeness, and not because I attach significance to it.
D. W.
(signature applied by hand; reproduced in the file only)
The letter was received on 16 June 2025. The underlining, where present, is the policyholder's. The Company has not underlined anything.
The last document in the file.
The memorandum below records the outcome of the claim, the referral that followed, and the loan of the animal. It is reproduced in full, in the Company's working register.
- Determination. The claim at reference was declined under Clause 5.3 on 17 June 2025. The policyholder was notified on 18 June. The policyholder's acknowledgement was received on 19 June, and read, in full: “I expected this.” No further correspondence has been received other than that recorded at paragraph 4.
- Policy wording. The assessor's recommendation that the Company's exposure to this class of event is structural has been accepted by Underwriting, and the policy wording has been revised accordingly. The revised wording is in force.
- Referral. Instruction HFDU-26-118 was issued to the Hadrian Institute, Nuneaton, on 09 July 2025. The instruction is that the Institute is to make the cat out of materials that do not catch fire. The Institute has accepted the instruction.
- Loan of the animal. The animal will need to be examined, and the loan of the animal was requested from the policyholder on 10 July 2025. The policyholder agreed to the loan without complaint, which the Company records as an improvement on the policyholder's previous dealings with the Company. The policyholder asked that the animal be kept away from warm electrical equipment while in the Institute's care. The request has been forwarded to the Institute, which has acknowledged it.
- Handover. Handover of the animal will take place at the Institute on 14 July 2025. The policyholder has offered to provide a note of the animal's habits, and the offer has been accepted, on the grounds that the Institute should know what it is receiving. The Institute has not yet asked what it is receiving.
- Filing. This memorandum is the last document in the file. The claim is declined, the study is commissioned, and the animal is loaned. The file is closed.