Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Newline Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N hired a car from Green Motion in February 2025 and purchased car hire excess insurance from Newline. When the vehicle suffered damage costing over £2,500 to repair, Newline declined the claim citing a policy exclusion for Green Motion vehicles. Mr N argued he had hired from Green Motion Car and Van Rental, a different company with separate Companies House registration. The ombudsman found the exclusion was clearly stated in the policy documents and that no reasonable person would interpret it to cover a differently-named entity, therefore upholding Newline's decision to decline the claim.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Newline provided clear and sufficient information at the point of sale about the Green Motion exclusion. The exclusion was explicitly stated in both the IPID (first bullet point under 'What is not insured') and the policy booklet (page 30, General Exclusions point 1a). The ombudsman rejected Mr N's argument that a different corporate entity with a similar name should be treated as covered, finding that no reasonable person would interpret the exclusion to cover Green Motion Car and Van Rental. The ombudsman concluded Newline acted fairly in declining the claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website