Not upheld: claims handling - repair effectiveness and indirect loss coverage complaint against Domestic & General Insurance Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B complained to the FOS about D&G's handling of multiple freezer repair claims under her home appliance insurance policy. Her freezer broke down repeatedly between June and September 2025, requiring four separate repair visits, and she had to discard food each time. D&G declined to cover the cost of spoiled food citing policy exclusions for indirect costs, and offered to waive one month's premium of £14.42. The ombudsman found that D&G's repairs were appropriate based on engineer reports showing different issues addressed on each visit, that the freezer typically worked for two weeks between breakdowns making further issues unforeseeable, and that the policy terms legitimately excluded indirect costs. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the policy terms explicitly exclude indirect costs such as spoiled food, the key question was whether D&G's actions caused Miss B to unnecessarily throw away food through poor repairs or inappropriate repair decisions. The engineer reports showed different repairs on each visit with no evidence of poor previous repairs causing subsequent breakdowns. The freezer typically worked for two weeks or more between breakdowns, making it unreasonable to expect D&G to foresee further issues or conduct a full service after repairs. The ombudsman concluded D&G handled the claims appropriately and the waived premium of £14.42 was reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website