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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S claimed on his home contents insurance policy after his property was broken into while he was out of the country. Lemonade declined the claim, citing insufficient substantiation of loss and material contradictions, as council photos showed items Mr S claimed were stolen were still present in the property. Mr S appealed to the FOS, arguing he was a crime victim and the outcome was unfair. The ombudsman upheld Lemonade's decision, finding that Mr S failed to prove with sufficient accuracy what was stolen, that his evidence (receipts and inherited jewellery) did not demonstrate items were in the property at the time of theft, and that his surrender of the tenancy prevented Lemonade's reasonable request for a loss adjuster investigation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that it was Mr S's responsibility to substantiate what items were stolen, and he failed to do so with sufficient accuracy. The council photos contradicted his claim by showing items he alleged were stolen were still present in the property. Receipts of purchase do not prove items were in the property at the time of theft, and inherited jewellery ownership does not prove it was present during the theft. Lemonade's request for a loss adjuster visit was reasonable and necessary to validate the claim, and Mr S's decision to surrender the tenancy and return keys prevented this investigation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website