Upheld: undervaluation of insured vehicle; failure to apply policy terms correctly complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M claimed on her horsebox insurance after her vehicle was stolen in July 2025. AXA initially offered £53,330, then revised to £58,477 after considering Mrs M's like-for-like examples, but Mrs M believed the vehicle was worth more. The ombudsman found AXA's valuation methodology violated the policy terms by including non-like-for-like examples in its average calculation. The ombudsman determined the fair market value should be £66,000 based on Mrs M's contemporaneous like-for-like examples and upheld the complaint, requiring AXA to pay the £7,523 shortfall plus interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The policy clearly requires AXA to pay fair market value defined as 'the same make and model and of a similar age and condition.' AXA's valuation methodology was flawed because it averaged examples that were not of the same make and model, and even after considering Mrs M's like-for-like examples, it continued to include non-like-for-like examples in the calculation. The only fair approach was to average only the like-for-like examples Mrs M provided, which were contemporaneous and reasonably similar to the stolen vehicle. AXA's concerns about the coachbuilder's vested interest were unsubstantiated and not countered with evidence from a similarly expert source.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website