Not upheld: claim decline and claim handling delays complaint against Tesco Underwriting Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B claimed on his motor insurance policy with Tesco Underwriting Limited after his car was damaged by fire. Tesco declined the claim, concluding the damage was caused by mechanical failure or wear and tear, which were excluded perils. Mr B was unhappy with the claim handling, including delays, the decision to decline, and the lack of a courtesy car. The ombudsman found that Tesco reasonably investigated the claim through three inspections and properly relied on engineering evidence supporting the exclusion of the claim. Although Tesco caused delays in returning the car, the £100 compensation paid was fair. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the engineering evidence was inconclusive, Tesco reasonably relied on its engineers' opinions that the damage was caused by mechanical failure or wear and tear, both excluded perils under the policy. The ombudsman noted that as a non-expert body, the FOS role is to assess whether the insurer reasonably considered available evidence and justified its decision, not to determine the actual cause of damage. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Tesco should have contacted the fire service and witnesses, as their testimony would not constitute expert evidence to counter the independent engineer's opinion. The ombudsman found Tesco had conducted sufficient investigations (three inspections) and was entitled to decline further investigation. The £100 compensation for the three-week delay in returning the car was deemed appropriate under FOS guidance.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website