Not upheld: claim handling, dispute over number of excesses, dispute over installation quality, dispute over scope of cover complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K claimed for accidental damage to basins in two bathrooms caused by his nephew dropping a soap dispenser. Aviva treated this as two separate incidents and charged two excesses, which Mr K disputed. Additionally, Mr K was unhappy with the installation of the replacement basin and pedestal, which left visible gaps that were filled with silicone sealant, and Aviva's refusal to replace the flooring. The ombudsman found that the two incidents were appropriately treated separately, Mr K was informed of the installation implications and agreed to the work, and the policy clearly excluded indirect losses such as flooring replacement. The ombudsman upheld Aviva's position and found the compensation offer of £225 fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that treating the damage as two separate incidents was fair because although caused by the same person and item, the incidents were not simultaneous, occurred in different rooms, and involved the soap dispenser being moved and dropped a second time. Mr K was informed of the installation implications and chose to replace the pedestal despite being told this would create a gap. The policy clearly excluded indirect losses such as flooring replacement, and the contractor's use of sealant was reasonable to ensure water-tightness. The compensation of £225 fairly reflected the communication issues and inconvenience of claim handling.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website