Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs D claimed on their travel insurance policy for theft from their vehicle while unattended. Upon returning to the vehicle, they found seats folded down and items missing, but the police report provided no evidence of how entry was gained. Aviva declined the claim based on policy terms requiring evidence of a break-in. The ombudsman found the rejection reasonable as the police report contained no such evidence and the policy terms were sufficiently clear. While sympathetic to Mr and Mrs D's circumstances, the ombudsman upheld Aviva's decision and found the £100 compensation for poor service handling to be fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Aviva reasonably declined the claim because the police report did not provide evidence of a break-in as required by the policy terms. The term 'evidence of a break in' can take various forms including physical damage or commentary on how entry was made, but none was present in this case. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the policy was unclear, as it explicitly refers to 'evidence of a break in'. The ombudsman also noted that while Mr and Mrs D's friends' claim was paid, the role is to assess the evidence presented in this specific claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website