Not upheld: unfair claim settlement and alleged defective repairs complaint against Assurant General Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6020958 of 2026-04-24T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claim settlement and alleged defective repairs complaint against Assurant General Insurance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6020958 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Assurant General Insurance Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | unfair claim settlement and alleged defective repairs |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Assurant is not required to pay Mr P's repair costs. |
Summary
Mr P complained that Assurant General Insurance Limited failed to properly repair two iPhones under his mobile phone insurance policy. He claimed the replacement glass used on one phone was fragile and broke easily, and that the back casing on the other phone was poor quality because a magnet was missing. When Mr P returned the phones in September 2025 claiming warranty defects, Assurant refused to repair them under warranty, noting new external damage had occurred. The ombudsman found photographic evidence clearly showed the phones had no damage when returned in July 2025 but had significant damage in September 2025, establishing the damage occurred after Assurant's repair. With no independent expert evidence supporting Mr P's claims about substandard parts and the policy explicitly permitting unbranded parts, the ombudsman found Assurant acted fairly and reasonably in refusing the warranty claims.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the photographic evidence clearly showed the phones had no cosmetic damage when returned in July 2025 but had significant damage when received in September 2025, establishing the damage occurred after Assurant's repair. The policy explicitly permits use of unbranded parts of similar or equivalent specification, and Assurant provided evidence the phones passed quality checks. Mr P provided no independent expert evidence that the replacement glass was substandard or fragile. The water ingress was more likely caused by the cracks in the phone rather than improper sealing by Assurant. The iPhone 13 Pro Max is specified as 'splash, water, and dust resistant' only, not waterproof, and resistance can decrease with normal wear. The iPhone 11 Pro Max model does not have a back magnet, so the missing magnet does not indicate poor quality repair work.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Assurant General Insurance Limited, all decisions | 752 | 39% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website