Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against QBE UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

M, a plant hire company, took out business protection insurance with QBE in August 2024. In October 2024, a telehandler hired to a third party went missing from the hirer's site. M claimed on the policy for the loss, but QBE declined the claim citing breach of policy endorsements requiring the vehicle to be kept in a secure building, compound or yard, or that reasonable precautions be taken to immobilise it. M argued the vehicle was at a secure private address with CCTV, dense hedging, and entrance gates, and was fitted with an immobiliser, and that CPA hire terms made the hirer responsible. The ombudsman found M failed to demonstrate the telehandler was secured in line with policy requirements at the time of loss, as the photographs did not clearly show the gate was securely locked and M could not confirm the immobiliser was activated. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the policy terms as the starting point for determining whether the claim was declined fairly. The policy required the vehicle to be kept in a secure building, compound or yard, or that reasonable precautions be taken to secure or immobilise it. The ombudsman found that M failed to demonstrate the telehandler was secured in line with policy requirements at the time of loss. The photographs did not clearly show the gate was securely locked, and there was no evidence the gate was forced open. Although the vehicle had an immobiliser, M could not confirm it was activated at the time. The ombudsman acknowledged M's difficult position but concluded the policy endorsements were clear and M needed to satisfy the conditions to have cover. The ombudsman also rejected the argument that CPA terms should apply, noting QBE is not bound by those terms and the security requirements in the policy still applied.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website