Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against esure Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W complained about esure's handling of her motor insurance claim following a double collision in November 2025. She experienced poor service including a rude claims handler, a missing second phone call that forced her to repeat claim details, a six-hour delay in recovery while injured and in cold weather, and provision of an unsuitable courtesy car. esure paid £350 in compensation, but Miss W sought £1,500. The ombudsman found that while esure's service could have been better, the £350 compensation was fair and in line with FOS guidelines for the short but intense period of distress and inconvenience, and the courtesy car was compliant with policy terms, so the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman acknowledged that Miss W experienced a distressing double collision and that esure's service could have been better, including the rude initial handler and the missing second call. However, the ombudsman characterized the period of distress and inconvenience as 'short but intense' (six hours) and found that the £350 compensation already paid was fair and in line with FOS guidelines, whereas the requested £1,500 was not. Regarding the courtesy car, the ombudsman found it was a Class A vehicle as specified in the policy wording, so esure acted fairly in providing it.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website