Not upheld: unfair premium increase and alleged failure to disclose impact of claim on renewal price complaint against Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited trading as LV=

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that LV= significantly increased their buildings and contents insurance renewal premium from £657.27 to £1,190.04 after they made a claim for an underground water leak in May 2025, and that they were not informed of this impact despite asking about financial implications. The ombudsman reviewed the call recording and found that the discussion concerned only the excesses payable for the repair work, not the renewal premium impact. The policy terms clearly stated that claims must be disclosed at renewal and could result in premium adjustments. The ombudsman confirmed that LV='s premium was consistent with their pricing principles for customers with similar risk profiles. The complaint was not upheld as LV= acted fairly in reassessing the risk and issuing an updated quotation after the claim was made before the renewal date.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Mr and Mrs C believed they asked about the financial implications of making a claim, the call recording showed the discussion was specifically about excesses payable for the repair work, not about renewal premium impact. The policy terms clearly state that claims must be disclosed at renewal and can result in premium adjustments, so Mr and Mrs C should have been aware of this possibility. The ombudsman reviewed LV='s confidential pricing policies and confirmed that the premium charged to Mr and Mrs C was consistent with what would be charged to any other customer in similar circumstances. The claim was made before renewal, so LV= acted within their rights to reassess the risk and issue an updated quotation. The fact that Mr and Mrs C obtained cheaper insurance elsewhere demonstrates that different insurers have different risk assessments, which is normal market practice.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website