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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs M complained to the FOS about Intact Insurance's handling of two home insurance claims: one for rat damage (declined due to vermin exclusion) and one for theft from their garage (limited to £3,000 due to policy limit). They also complained about significant delays in claims processing, confusing communications, and not receiving their policy booklet. While the ombudsman agreed Intact handled the claims poorly and caused avoidable frustration, it found the claim decisions were fair applications of policy terms. The ombudsman determined that the £250 compensation Intact had already paid was appropriate for the handling failures, as compensation could only cover additional distress from poor handling, not the underlying events or fair claim denials.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Intact correctly applied policy terms: the vermin exclusion is common and the £3,000 garage theft limit was clearly stated in the Insurance Product Information Document. The garage qualified as a garage under policy terms, not an outbuilding, so the limit applied fairly. The lawnmower was not covered as Mr and Mrs M did not have upgraded contents cover for garden items. While Intact's claims handling was poor—causing delays and confusion—this was separate from the claim outcomes. The ombudsman could only award compensation for additional distress from poor handling, not for underlying events or fair claim denials. The £250 already paid was appropriate for the handling failures.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website