Not upheld: unfair claim rejection complaint against AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP UK LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C claimed on an excess reimbursement policy after incurring a £1,643.90 excess charge when he damaged a hired van during a family holiday. AIG rejected the claim on the grounds that the van was a commercial vehicle excluded under the policy. Mr C disputed this, arguing that the policy wording he was provided did not exclude vans and that the policy was ambiguous. The ombudsman found that the van fell within the definition of 'commercial vehicle' based on its design features (three seats with separate cargo area), and that the policy and IPID, read together, clearly excluded such vehicles regardless of actual use. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that the van fell within the definition of 'commercial vehicle' based on its design features (cabin with limited seating and separate cargo area designed for carriage of goods), regardless of how it was actually used. The policy clearly excluded commercial vehicles by type and design rather than by use. The IPID supplemented and clarified the policy wording rather than contradicting it, and both documents should be read together. The absence of the specific word 'van' in the main policy wording did not create ambiguity or render the exclusion unfair.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website