Not upheld: unfair claim decline complaint against Chubb European Group SE

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G complained that Chubb unfairly declined his car theft claim made in January 2025. Chubb declined the claim because the policy contained an endorsement requiring a Chubb Vehicle Tracker Plus system to be installed within 21 days of inception and active at the time of theft, which Mr G's vehicle did not have. Although Mr G's car had a different tracker installed, it lacked an active subscription. The ombudsman found the policy endorsement was clear and unambiguous, and Chubb reasonably relied on it to decline the claim. The ombudsman rejected arguments that the alternative tracker should suffice or that an active tracker would not have prevented the theft, noting that trackers are effective theft deterrents and such requirements are standard in motor insurance. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found the policy endorsement was clear and unambiguous, entitling Chubb to rely on it when declining the claim. The starting position in such complaints is the agreement between the parties - the policy documents. Chubb reasonably concluded the claim was not covered as Mr G's vehicle did not have the required Chubb Vehicle Tracker Plus system installed. The ombudsman rejected Mr G's argument that the alternative tracker should suffice, noting it lacked an active subscription. The ombudsman also rejected the argument that an active tracker would not have prevented the theft, noting that trackers are effective theft deterrents and active trackers increase recovery chances, thus reducing Chubb's risk. Terms requiring specific trackers are not unusual in motor insurance and are used to reduce insurer risk for expensive vehicles.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website