Not upheld: unfair claims decline complaint against White Horse Insurance UK Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P claimed on his hire car excess insurance policy after his rental car was damaged abroad. White Horse paid the excess but declined to reimburse a surcharge that the rental company had charged, describing it as a location charge. Mr P argued the surcharge was causally related to the damage and should be covered. The ombudsman found that White Horse's policy explicitly excluded location charges and that the surcharge was unambiguously a location charge, making White Horse's decision to decline it fair and reasonable. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the surcharge may have been mathematically or causally related to the damage, insurance policies are designed to exclude certain risks. The policy wording explicitly excludes location charges, and the surcharge was unambiguously a location charge. The ombudsman rejected the argument that all damage-related costs should be covered, noting that exclusions must have meaning and purpose. White Horse did not interpret the exclusion too narrowly and was entitled to decline this element of the claim.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website