Not upheld: claim rejection / claim handling complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms O claimed that recurring seatbelt issues and a warning light appearing in November 2024 resulted from negligent repairs carried out by LV's chosen garage following a February 2024 incident where her vehicle hit the kerb. LV declined to cover the costs, stating it needed evidence that the damage was related to and covered by the original claim, and that it could not inspect the damage as repairs were carried out before notification. The Ombudsman found that Ms O bore the burden of proving her loss was covered and that LV was liable, and that the 7-month gap between repairs and complaint, combined with the garage's indication of a further incident and absence of independent evidence linking the issues to the original repairs, meant LV fairly declined cover. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied ICOBS 8.1 principles requiring insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly without unreasonably rejecting claims. However, the Ombudsman found that Ms O bore the burden of demonstrating her loss was covered by the policy and that LV was liable. The 7-month gap between the initial February 2024 repairs and the November 2024 notification of problems suggested the issues were not related to the original repairs. The garage's indication that the November 2024 seatbelt work followed a further incident, combined with the absence of independent evidence linking the issues to the original repairs and LV's unsuccessful attempts to obtain clarifying reports, meant LV was fair in declining cover without substantiation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website