Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against Tradex Insurance Company PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D claimed for damage to his car's sunroof and disputed Tradex's application of a £250 accidental damage excess instead of a £100 glass cover excess. Mr D argued the moveable front element of his roof should be treated as a sunroof covered under the Glass section, separate from the fixed rear panoramic roof element. The ombudsman determined that the entire glass structure constitutes a panoramic roof, which is explicitly excluded from the Glass section under the policy wording. The ombudsman upheld Tradex's decision to apply the accidental damage excess and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that the entire glass structure on Mr D's car constitutes a panoramic roof, not separate sunroof and panoramic roof components. The policy exclusion for panoramic glass roofs applies to the whole structure. The ombudsman noted that if Tradex intended to cover moveable roofs separately, it would have specified this in the policy wording. Therefore, Tradex correctly applied the accidental damage excess.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website