Upheld: claim handling - incorrect information provision, poor service complaint against Fortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr W complained about Fortegra's handling of his GAP insurance claim following the theft of his car in February 2025. Fortegra incorrectly informed Mr W that he was not entitled to a hire car benefit under his policy, despite the policy terms providing for up to £30 per day. Mr W subsequently purchased a replacement vehicle rather than pursuing the insurer's new car replacement offer, and later sought compensation for various losses including policy cancellation charges and the cost of being without a car. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Fortegra's misinformation was improper, but rejected Mr W's claims for broader financial losses as these resulted from his personal circumstances rather than the incorrect information. The ombudsman awarded £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the misinformation and poor claim handling.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

While Fortegra undoubtedly provided incorrect information about the hire car provision, the ombudsman found that Mr W's decision to purchase a replacement vehicle was not caused by this misinformation. Mr W stated he did not want the same car back due to emotional distress from the theft circumstances and needed a vehicle immediately for business purposes, whereas NCR would have taken at least two months. However, the ombudsman recognised that Mr W went to significant lengths to try to resolve the hire car issue and was prevented from utilising a benefit he was entitled to. The incorrect information and poor handling caused distress and inconvenience, warranting compensation. The ombudsman rejected claims for financial losses from policy cancellation and hire car payments as these were not caused by the misinformation, and Mr W did not actually incur hire car costs. The ombudsman also found Fortegra's requirement to evidence losses before settlement was reasonable, and that there was no misleading conduct regarding the premium refund.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website