Not upheld: claim handling, vehicle damage, claim decline complaint against Esure Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr K claimed under his Esure motor insurance policy after smoke was reported from his engine in July 2025. Esure's engineers concluded the damage was due to mechanical failure (no compression in cylinder 3) rather than an insured fire, and declined the claim. When Mr K's mechanic inspected the vehicle, it had been returned with the engine partially dismantled and parts in the boot. Esure acknowledged this was improper and awarded £150 compensation. When the vehicle was returned to Esure's repairer for reassembly, further damage was discovered caused by a cloth tangled in the engine. Esure maintained the cloth was not present when the vehicle originally left their repairer. The ombudsman upheld Esure's position on both the original claim decline and the additional damage, finding the £150 compensation adequate for the dismantled condition issue.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test to determine whether the cloth was present when the vehicle left Esure's repairer. The key reasoning was that if the cloth had been present during Mr K's mechanic's inspection on 17 September 2025, it would have been identified and mentioned in the invoice. Since there was no mention of a cloth at that time or in Mr K's subsequent contact with Esure on 18 September 2025, the ombudsman concluded it was more likely the cloth became tangled after the vehicle left Esure's repairer. Therefore, Esure could not be held responsible for the additional damage. The ombudsman also found Esure's original claim decline was justified based on the engineers' findings of mechanical failure rather than an insured fire, and that the £150 compensation for returning the vehicle in a dismantled condition was fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website