Partially upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M complained that Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd cancelled her motor insurance policy and declined her claim following a total loss. Eridge discovered that Miss M was not the car's registered keeper or legal owner—the registered keeper was her fiancé and the legal owner was a finance company. The ombudsman found that Miss M had been asked a clear question about the registered keeper and had answered incorrectly. Under Eridge's underwriting criteria, an acceptable relationship with the registered keeper required them to be spouses, civil partners, or common law partners living together, which Miss M and her fiancé were not. Therefore, Eridge was entitled to cancel the policy and decline the claim. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in part because the misrepresentation was careless rather than deliberate, requiring Eridge to refund the premiums with 8% simple interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Miss M was asked a clear question about the car's registered keeper and ownership, which was material to Eridge's decision to offer cover. The information provided was incorrect as the registered keeper was her fiancé, not Miss M. Under Eridge's underwriting criteria, an acceptable relationship with the registered keeper required them to be spouses, civil partners, or common law partners living together. There was no evidence Miss M and her fiancé were living together, so Eridge would not have offered cover had the correct information been provided. Therefore, Eridge was entitled to cancel and decline the claim. However, as the misrepresentation was careless rather than deliberate, Eridge should refund the premiums with interest.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website