Not upheld: unfair claim decline complaint against Zurich Insurance Company Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A complained that Zurich unfairly declined his theft claim after his high-value car was stolen in March 2025. The policy required an active S5 tracker and Ghost 2 immobiliser to be installed as conditions of cover, which were clearly stated in the quotation and policy documentation. Mr A had arranged for installation but the car was stolen before the appointment could take place. He requested a grace period from Zurich, which was declined. The ombudsman found the claim decline was fair and reasonable as Mr A agreed to the policy terms, the onus was on him to ensure compliance, and the short timeframe was not due to Zurich's actions but rather his previous insurer's late notification of non-renewal.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the starting point that insurance claims must be assessed against the policy terms which set out the basis of cover. The policy clearly stated that theft cover was conditional on having an S5 tracker and Ghost 2 immobiliser installed and operational. Mr A agreed to these terms when taking out the policy, placing the onus on him to ensure compliance. While the ombudsman has power to direct departure from policy terms if fair and reasonable, the circumstances did not warrant this. The short timeframe between policy commencement and the theft was not due to Zurich's actions but rather Mr A's previous insurer's late notification of non-renewal. Zurich's refusal to offer a grace period was reasonable as it would have meant accepting risk beyond what was agreed and reflected in the premium.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website