Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against MSIG Europe SE

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D complained that MSIG treated him unfairly in handling his yacht insurance claim following damage to his vessel in May 2021. MSIG initially declined the claim but later agreed to settle on an ex-gratia basis. After discovering additional damage and disputes over repair costs, MSIG offered £26,500 in December 2023 and later increased this to £30,590 in October 2024, with Mr D signing agreements stating these were in full and final settlement. Mr D subsequently claimed he had signed under economic duress and that he was unable to recover uninsured losses of over £12,500 after his LEI provider withdrew support. The ombudsman found the settlement agreements were clear and binding, rejected the duress allegation, and declined to intervene in agreements already reached by both parties.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman considered whether it was appropriate to intervene given that binding settlement agreements had already been reached. The ombudsman found both agreements contained clear and definitive wording stating they were in full and final settlement. The ombudsman rejected Mr D's argument that he signed under economic duress, noting that Mr D's own subsequent negotiations with MSIG demonstrated his ability to negotiate and that there was insufficient evidence to support the duress allegation. The ombudsman concluded that Mr D's belief that he would recover uninsured losses elsewhere should not affect the finality of the agreement, as the agreement itself was not conditional on any other outcome. Therefore, the ombudsman determined it would not be fair or reasonable to intervene in agreements already reached by both parties.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website