Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Lemonade Insurance N.V.

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S claimed on his contents insurance policy following an escape of water incident in August 2024, but Lemonade declined cover for clothes and a cooker, citing insufficient evidence. Mr S complained that he was misled about clothing coverage and destroyed many items, and that Lemonade unfairly declined his cooker claim because he had replaced it with an integrated model. The ombudsman found Lemonade acted reasonably: the dry cleaning option offered was fair, Mr S's destruction of clothes without photographic evidence was his own choice, and the cooker claim was properly declined as integrated cookers are typically fixtures rather than contents. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a balance of probabilities test to assess whether Lemonade acted fairly and reasonably. For the clothes, the ombudsman found the dry cleaning option was reasonable and that Mr S's decision to destroy clothes was his own choice; Lemonade was not responsible for Mr S's inability to claim for destroyed items without photographic evidence. For the cooker, the ombudsman found that integrated cookers are typically permanent fixtures rather than contents, and Mr S failed to provide evidence of the original cooker type despite Lemonade's requests.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website