Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Acasta European Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E purchased three sofas with a furniture warranty from Acasta in 2023. In September 2025, he claimed the footrests were not working and Acasta's agent determined the mechanisms had been bent due to the sofas being placed against a wall. Acasta declined the claim citing policy exclusions for misuse and gradual damage. Mr E disputed this, arguing the sofas did not normally sit against walls and that alternative causes such as manufacturing defects should be ruled out. The ombudsman found Acasta's detailed engineer report with photographic evidence persuasive and concluded that wall placement was the most likely cause of the damage, which falls within the policy's exclusions for misuse and gradual damage.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found Acasta's engineer report to be persuasive and detailed, showing bent scissor arms consistent with prolonged wall placement. The visible scuffing and marks on the sofas supported the conclusion that damage occurred gradually over time due to misuse (wall placement), which falls within the policy's exclusions. While Mr E speculated about alternative causes such as manufacturing faults, the ombudsman found no evidence to support these theories and determined that wall placement was the most likely cause based on the available evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website