Upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against MSIG Europe SE
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6118151 of 2026-02-18T00:00:00+00:00. Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against MSIG Europe SE. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6118151 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | MSIG Europe SE |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Travel / life insurance claim disputes |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MSIG must: (1) Remove the avoidance record from its own and industry databases; (2) Reinstate the 2024 policy until the new cover commenced on 24 October 2024, then cancel it; (3) Reimburse any unused premium with 8% simple interest from 24 October 2024; (4) Reimburse any difference in cost between MSIG's policy and the replacement policy Miss H obtained, with interest from dates paid; (5) Consider the claim; (6) Reimburse legal costs incurred between 10 September 2024 and 6 December 2024 with 8% simple interest from dates incurred; (7) Pay £600 compensation. MSIG is precluded from avoiding the 2023 policy on grounds relating to C's conviction. |
Summary
Miss H complained about MSIG's avoidance of her 2024 marine insurance policy and subsequent claim decline. MSIG avoided the policy claiming Miss H made a reckless or deliberate misrepresentation by failing to disclose that a person (C) using the vessel had an unspent criminal conviction. The ombudsman found the avoidance unfair because the questions about convictions in the renewal documents were unclear and contradictory—the Statement of Facts questions started mid-sentence and were grammatically incomplete, while the Certificate of Insurance used different wording. Under CIDRA, a qualifying misrepresentation requires both a breach of the duty to take reasonable care and proof the insurer would not have entered the contract with correct information. The ombudsman concluded Miss H could not reasonably be expected to take care when answering unclear questions, particularly without access to the original 2023 questions for reference. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, requiring MSIG to reinstate the policy, reimburse premiums and costs, consider the claim, and pay £600 compensation, while precluding MSIG from avoiding the 2023 policy on the same grounds.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that MSIG failed to clearly communicate what information it required regarding convictions. The SOF questions were grammatically incomplete, starting mid-sentence, and the Certificate of Insurance used different wording than both the SOF and the original portal questions. Under CIDRA, a qualifying misrepresentation requires both a breach of the duty to take reasonable care and proof the insurer would not have entered the contract with correct information. The ombudsman concluded that Miss H could not reasonably be expected to take care in answering unclear questions, particularly when she was not provided with the original 2023 questions for reference and the renewal documents contained conflicting wording. The ombudsman also found it fair to preclude MSIG from avoiding the 2023 policy on the same grounds, as MSIG had made a deliberate choice to avoid only the 2024 policy and should not be permitted to revisit that decision after the avoidance was found unfair.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| MSIG Europe SE, all decisions | 13 | 42% |
| Travel / life insurance claim disputes, all decisions | 19,183 | 32% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website