Upheld: claim handling failure and misinformation complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Astrenska

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B claimed on his Astrenska military kit policy for laptop damage caused by accidental dropping. Astrenska initially rejected the claim for lack of evidence of accidental damage, then rejected a second claim citing an accidental damage exclusion endorsement. However, Astrenska subsequently told Mr B's broker there was no endorsement and encouraged him to obtain an engineer's report, leading him to believe his claim would be accepted if he did so. After Mr B paid £50 for the report, Astrenska rejected the claim again citing the live endorsement. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Astrenska should have disclosed the endorsement from the outset, but rejected the claim for the laptop replacement as it would never have been covered. The remedy comprised reimbursement of the engineer's report cost plus interest and £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Astrenska failed to make clear from the outset that the accidental damage endorsement meant Mr B's claim would never be covered. While Astrenska's failure to provide correct information caused distress and inconvenience, and Mr B incurred unnecessary costs for the engineer's report, the ombudsman determined that the underlying claim would never have been payable regardless of the engineer's findings due to the live endorsement. Therefore, the appropriate remedy was compensation for the misinformation and distress rather than payment of the claim itself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website