Not upheld: claim handling - rejection of evidence of ownership complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P and Miss P claimed on their gadget insurance after Miss P's mobile phone was damaged during a trip. Collinson Insurance initially rejected the claim because the first network provider letter provided as evidence of ownership only confirmed SIM card usage, not device usage as required by the policy. After Mr P and Miss P provided a second letter with more detailed information including the IMEI number, Collinson Insurance accepted the claim the following day as a gesture of goodwill. The ombudsman found that Collinson Insurance acted fairly and reasonably throughout the process by explaining the policy requirements and accepting the claim promptly when further evidence was provided, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied FCA rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and not unreasonably reject claims. The policy terms clearly defined evidence of ownership requirements. The first network provider letter did not provide confirmation that the phone had been used by Miss P, only that the SIM card had been used. Although the second letter provided more information including the IMEI number, the ombudsman found it unnecessary to determine if this fully met the criteria because Collinson Insurance accepted the claim the following day, which was reasonable. The ombudsman concluded the insurer acted fairly by explaining why the initial evidence was insufficient and then accepting the claim promptly when further evidence was provided.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website