Not upheld: claim decline - failure to meet policy definition requirements complaint against Hiscox Underwriting Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B claimed for the theft of his cycle under a Hiscox cycle insurance policy. Hiscox declined the claim because the cycle was left in a location that was not his home for more than 24 consecutive hours and did not meet the policy's definition of 'cycle parking', specifically because Mr B had not paid for parking on a monthly or yearly subscription basis. Although Mr B satisfied all other requirements of the 'cycle parking' definition and the storage facility was secure, the ombudsman found Hiscox's decision to be fair and reasonable as all requirements of the policy definition must be met for cover to apply. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman assessed the reasonableness of Hiscox's actions rather than the technical validity of the claim. The policy clearly defines 'cycle parking' with specific requirements, all of which must be satisfied for cover to apply. The subscription payment requirement is a material factor in the risk assessment that underwriters choose to accept. Mr B failed to meet this requirement, so the claim does not fall within the insured locations listed in the policy. Therefore, Hiscox's decision to decline the claim was fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website