Not upheld: unfair claims settlement - inadequate replacement offer complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6211239 of 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00. unfair claims settlement - inadequate replacement offer complaint against Ageas Insurance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6211239 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Ageas Insurance Limited |
| Product | Home insurance |
| Claim type | unfair claims settlement - inadequate replacement offer |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. Ageas's existing offer of cash settlement equivalent to the suggested replacement model less policy excess is deemed fair and adequate. |
Summary
Mr L claimed for accidental damage to his discontinued Samsung curved TV under his contents insurance policy with Ageas. Ageas offered a replacement flat-screen model as the nearest equivalent, which Mr L rejected as inadequate, arguing for a premium QLED model and citing his health condition requiring curved displays for concentration management. The ombudsman found Ageas's suggested replacement was a fair functional equivalent sharing similar specifications and price to the original, whereas Mr L's preferred model represented a significant premium upgrade constituting betterment. The cash settlement offered allows Mr L to contribute towards his preferred model, and installation costs are not covered under policy terms. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied ICOBS 8.1 principles requiring fair and prompt claims handling. Under the policy, Ageas must indemnify Mr L by putting him back in his pre-loss position. Since the original TV is discontinued, Ageas must find a reasonable equivalent model that is as good as or better than the original. Comparing technical specifications, the ombudsman found that both the original TV and Ageas's suggested UE55U8000F share similar performance capabilities (edge-lit LED/crystal UHD panels, 50/60Hz refresh rate, entry-level motion handling, similar price bracket), whereas the Q80D represents a significant upgrade in screen technology, refresh rate, and market value that would constitute betterment beyond standard new-for-old insurance. While acknowledging Mr L's health condition and preference for curved displays, the ombudsman concluded that Ageas's offer is fair as a functional match, and the cash settlement allows Mr L to contribute towards a higher-specification model if desired. Installation costs are not covered under the policy terms.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Ageas Insurance Limited, all decisions | 3,003 | 40% |
| Home insurance, all decisions | 20,668 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website