Not upheld: Service failures generally complaint against Accelerant Insurance UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Accelerant unfairly voided his commercial property insurance policy following a claim for malicious damage caused by a cannabis farm. Accelerant cited multiple grounds for voidance: undeclared tenant non-payment issues, inclusion of a two-storey building in poor condition, and incorrect occupancy type (storage instead of building contracting). The Ombudsman rejected the first two grounds as Accelerant failed to provide underwriting evidence it would have acted differently. However, the Ombudsman upheld the voidance based on occupancy misrepresentation, finding that Mr S was present during the loss adjuster's inspection when the property's actual storage use was discussed and failed to correct the previously declared building contracting use. Accelerant's underwriting information demonstrated it would not have offered cover for storage use, making the voidance fair under the Insurance Act 2015.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the Insurance Act 2015, which requires commercial policyholders to make a fair presentation of risk by disclosing all material information. The key issue was the occupancy type: the policy declared 'Building Contracting' but the loss adjuster's report confirmed the property was used for storage. Mr S was present during the loss adjuster's inspection when this was discussed and did not correct the information. Accelerant provided underwriting evidence showing it would not have offered cover for storage use, establishing a qualifying breach. The Ombudsman rejected other grounds for voidance (tenant non-payment and property condition) as Accelerant failed to provide underwriting evidence it would have acted differently. However, on occupancy, the breach was clear and material, making the voidance fair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website