Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Lemonade Insurance N.V.

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs J claimed on their contents insurance policy with Lemonade Insurance N.V. for damage to a tree and fence caused by bad weather. Lemonade declined the claim, arguing that neither the tree nor fence constituted 'contents' covered by the policy. Mr J argued the tree should be covered as the policy explicitly covers 'plants'. The ombudsman found that while a tree is technically a plant, the ordinary everyday meaning of 'plants' in the context of contents insurance refers to portable items like potted plants and flowers, not mature rooted trees. The ombudsman upheld Lemonade's decision as fair and reasonable, finding the tree cannot reasonably be considered an item of contents.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the ordinary, everyday meaning of the word 'plants' in the context of the policy and the insurance market's usual approach. While acknowledging that a tree is technically within the broad botanical definition of 'plant', the ombudsman found that the average person would not typically refer to a mature tree rooted in the ground as a 'plant'. The ombudsman reasoned that contents insurance typically covers personal property that can be moved relatively easily and would be taken when moving home, which does not apply to mature rooted trees. Therefore, the tree cannot reasonably be considered an item of contents covered by the policy.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website