Veste

Not upheld: claim handling - request for information and settlement process complaint against Tokio Marine Kiln Insurance Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6274030 of 2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00. claim handling - request for information and settlement process complaint against Tokio Marine Kiln Insurance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6274030
Decision date2026-05-22T00:00:00+00:00
FirmTokio Marine Kiln Insurance Limited
Productcommercial property insurance
Claim typeclaim handling - request for information and settlement process
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNo additional remedy ordered. TMK's existing offer of £250 compensation is accepted as appropriate.

Summary

Ms N complained about how Tokio Marine Kiln Insurance Limited handled her commercial property insurance claim following damage in 2016. The complaint was limited to TMK's handling of losses relating to items in storage. TMK requested a breakdown of missing items (provided in July 2024) and subsequently asked for a total loss estimate, which Ms N did not provide before referring the complaint to FOS in October 2024. The ombudsman found TMK's requests were reasonable and fair steps to resolve the dispute, and that TMK's £250 compensation offer was appropriate. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that TMK's requests for information were reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. While recognising Ms N faced genuine challenges in compiling a list of missing items due to their storage across multiple locations over several years, the ombudsman held that TMK was not responsible for the time taken to provide this information. The request for a total loss estimate (rather than item-by-item valuations) was a fair means to resolve the dispute. The ombudsman considered that TMK's £250 compensation for upset was appropriate and in line with what would have been awarded.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Tokio Marine Kiln Insurance Limited, all decisions838%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website