Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Newline Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased a 12-month motor warranty with Newline in December 2024. In February 2025, he claimed for a broken pump after a warning light appeared. Newline declined the claim citing a neglect exclusion, arguing Mr M had driven the car approximately 2,000 miles after a fault code was recorded (which would typically trigger a warning light). Mr M disputed this and also complained the policy was mis-sold. The ombudsman found Newline's decision to decline the claim was fair and reasonable, as Mr M had driven the vehicle for an unreasonable distance with the warning light showing, constituting neglect. The ombudsman also found no mis-selling, as the policy terms were provided post-purchase with a 30-day cancellation period and the exclusion was not unusual. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy covers mechanical and electrical failure, but Newline validly relied on the neglect exclusion. A fault code was recorded over 2,000 miles before the failure, which would typically trigger a warning light in modern cars. Mr M driving approximately 2,000 miles after this fault was recorded constitutes neglect under the policy terms. The ombudsman rejected Mr M's argument that the warning light only appeared at the point of failure, finding it most likely the fault would have resulted in a warning light being displayed earlier. Regarding the mis-selling complaint, the ombudsman found the policy terms were provided after purchase with a 30-day cancellation period, and the neglect exclusion is a common term in motor warranties that did not require specific highlighting during the sales call.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website