Not upheld: claims handling - refusal to cover battery fault complaint against esure Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R claimed on his motor insurance policy after his electric car was damaged in an accident in September 2025. While esure's approved repairer carried out repairs to minor front bumper damage, a locked high-voltage battery issue subsequently arose. Mr R believed the repairer caused the battery fault, but esure's engineer and an independent main dealer assessment both concluded the fault was unrelated to the accident or repairs, and may have been caused by Mr R using an incorrect charger lead. esure refused to cover further repair costs and offered to recover the car, which Mr R declined. The ombudsman found esure's reliance on expert evidence was fair and reasonable, and upheld esure's decision not to cover the battery fault or associated storage costs. The ombudsman also found the £50 compensation already paid for a duplicate excess request was sufficient.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to assess whether esure fairly considered available evidence. The ombudsman noted that expert reports from both esure's engineer and the main dealer consistently indicated the battery fault was not related to the minor front bumper damage or the repair works. The main dealer's report suggested the issue may have been caused by Mr R using an incorrect charger lead. The ombudsman concluded that esure's reliance on expert evidence was fair and reasonable, and that the battery fault was more likely a coincidence unrelated to the repair. The ombudsman also found the £50 compensation for the duplicate excess request was appropriate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website