Not upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Ms M complained that Accredited Insurance voided her home insurance policy and declined her subsidence claim after she failed to disclose cracks in her property. Ms M had answered 'no' to questions about cracking at policy inception in May 2025, despite a homebuyer's report showing cracks in the mortar of the main wall structure. The ombudsman found that Ms M failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation, as a reasonable consumer would have answered 'yes' to the clear question about cracking within the last 10 years. Accredited had provided clear warning about the assumptions underlying the quote and demonstrated they would not have offered cover on any terms had correct information been provided. Under CIDRA, Accredited was entitled to avoid the policy and decline the claim while refunding premiums, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Ms M failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when answering questions about cracking. The question asked about any signs of cracking within the last 10 years and was clear and unambiguous. A reasonable consumer in Ms M's circumstances would have answered 'yes' given the homebuyer's report showed cracks in the mortar affecting the main structure. Accredited provided clear warning about the assumptions underlying the quote and required confirmation. The misrepresentation was qualifying because Accredited demonstrated they would not have offered cover on any terms had they received correct information. Under CIDRA, for a careless qualifying misrepresentation where the insurer would not have offered cover, the insurer can avoid the policy and decline claims while refunding premiums, which is what Accredited did.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website