Not upheld: claims settlement fairness and repair quality complaint against Assurant General Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms S claimed on her mobile phone insurance for a damaged porcelain back cover. Assurant repaired the phone but replaced the back cover with an obsidian (black) cover instead of the original porcelain (white) colour. Ms S subsequently dropped the repaired phone into water and it became water damaged. She complained that Assurant should have provided a colour-matched repair, that the repair was of poor quality causing loss of water resistance, and sought a replacement phone, excess refund, and compensation. The ombudsman found the policy terms clearly permitted use of replacement parts of similar or equivalent specification without colour matching guarantees, and that the phone manufacturer's guidance explicitly stated water resistance can be compromised by repair, meaning Ms S had not provided sufficient evidence of poor repair quality. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy terms clearly permitted Assurant to use replacement parts of similar or equivalent specification without guaranteeing colour match. The obsidian cover was of similar or equivalent specification to the porcelain cover apart from colour. Regarding water damage, the phone manufacturer's own guidance explicitly states that water resistance can be compromised by repair and disassembly, meaning such compromise does not necessarily indicate poor quality repair. Ms S failed to provide sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that the water damage was caused by poor repair quality rather than the inherent limitation of water resistance after repair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website