Not upheld: claim decline - alleged unfair policy exclusion complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L claimed on his gadget insurance policy for an iPad stolen from a seat pocket in his locked vehicle during a break-in. Astrenska declined the claim because the iPad was not stored in a locked boot, glove compartment, or other locked internal compartment as required by the policy exclusion. Mr L argued the policy wording was ambiguous, that compliance was physically impossible for his vehicle design, and that he had taken reasonable precautions. The ombudsman found the policy exclusion was clear and unambiguous, that Astrenska reasonably applied it, and that the exclusion was not unfair as it clearly set out the insurer's risk appetite and was highlighted in the product information document.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the policy exclusion was clear and unambiguous, requiring gadgets to be stored in a locked boot, glove compartment, or other locked internal compartment when left in an unoccupied vehicle. The phrase 'locked internal compartment' is sufficiently clear to a reasonable consumer. Although Mr L took reasonable precautions, the claim was declined based on the specific policy exclusion, not on failure to take reasonable care. The exclusion is not unfair as it clearly sets out what risks Astrenska will and will not insure, and it was highlighted in the product information document. The ombudsman rejected arguments about vehicle design making compliance impossible, noting the iPad could have been stored in the locked boot.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website