Upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-4123674 of 2023-06-08T00:00:00+00:00. Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-4123674 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2023-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd |
| Product | Motor insurance |
| Claim type | Travel / life insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Eridge must: (1) handle Miss S's claim in line with the terms and conditions of her policy as if it existed; (2) remove any reference to the policy being cancelled or avoided from its own database and any other databases; (3) write to Miss S confirming this has been done and that she does not need to declare the avoidance in future; (4) pay Miss S £500 for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Miss S purchased motor insurance from Eridge in December 2021, declaring herself as self-employed animal breeder. Following a major incident in January 2022, Eridge declined her claim alleging misrepresentation of occupation and voided the policy ab initio. The ombudsman upheld Miss S's complaint, finding her self-employment declaration was likely accurate based on evidence of her business setup and the typical lead-in period for animal breeding businesses. Eridge was ordered to handle the claim as if the policy existed, remove avoidance records, and pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Miss S's declaration of self-employment as an animal breeder was likely accurate given the evidence she provided about her business setup, including knowledge of breeding timescales and the lengthy lead-in period typical for such businesses. Eridge failed to provide evidence of what it would expect to see as proof of self-employment and unfairly applied its underwriting standards at the point of claim rather than at the point of sale. The ombudsman concluded Miss S did not misrepresent her occupation and Eridge acted unfairly.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd, all decisions | 5 | 30% |
| Travel / life insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 19,183 | 32% |
| Motor insurance, all decisions | 24,036 | 35% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website