Not upheld: mis-selling / unsuitable product / failure to disclose material restrictions complaint against esure Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained that esure sold him an unsuitable motor insurance policy because he was unable to add his 16-year-old daughter as a named driver when he attempted to do so shortly after inception. Mr M claimed esure failed to disclose this material restriction at the point of sale and that he incurred financial loss by purchasing separate cover for his daughter. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that Mr M did not disclose his intention to add a learner driver when applying for cover, and therefore esure could not reasonably be expected to highlight restrictions related to this change. The ombudsman concluded that esure's decision to decline the addition fell within its underwriting acceptance criteria and policy terms, and that esure acted fairly in this regard.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman reasoned that Mr M applied for cover for himself only and did not disclose his intention to add a learner driver when seeking a quote. Insurers are entitled to assess risk according to their own underwriting criteria and decline cover that falls outside their acceptance criteria. Since Mr M did not inform esure of his intended purpose, esure could not reasonably be expected to highlight restrictions related to adding a learner driver. The decision to decline the addition was a commercial underwriting decision, not a policy term, and therefore did not require upfront disclosure. esure acted within its policy terms and fairly declined the requested change.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website