Not upheld: claim denial / irresponsible claims handling complaint against Acromas Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G claimed under his AA Parts and Garage Cover insurance policy after his vehicle's rear window regulator broke, costing £600 to repair. Acromas declined the claim citing a window exclusion and arguing no breakdown occurred. The ombudsman found the window exclusion did not apply to the regulator mechanism but upheld the claim denial because the vehicle met neither the requirement for AA attendance nor the safety criterion for breakdown. Although Acromas had paid a similar 2024 claim, the ombudsman found it entitled to assess each claim individually and found the rear window situation (unlike the 2024 front window case) did not render the vehicle unsafe to drive.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Acromas was incorrect to rely on the window exclusion (which applies to windows themselves, not mechanisms), the claim was properly declined because the vehicle did not meet the policy definition of breakdown. The definition requires attendance by AA and that the vehicle could not continue or commence a journey safely. Although AA did not attend, the ombudsman found it reasonable that AA did not consider the vehicle unsafe to drive with a rear window covered by cardboard and tape. The ombudsman distinguished this from the 2024 claim (front window, January weather) and found that Acromas was entitled to assess each claim individually based on its specific circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website