Partially upheld: claim declined - misapplication of policy terms; misadvice regarding coverage; ambiguous policy wording complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M claimed for contents of his touring caravan destroyed by fire while parked on his driveway under his home insurance policy with Admiral. Admiral initially indicated the claim was covered but subsequently declined it, citing the motorised vehicle exclusion. The ombudsman found the policy wording ambiguous regarding contents of vehicles destroyed by fire on the insured's property and, applying the principle that ambiguities favour the customer, determined the contents should be treated as 'garden contents' with a £2,500 limit. Admiral was required to reprocess the claim on this basis and pay £400 compensation for misadvice and service failures.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the policy excludes motorised vehicles (including caravans) from contents cover, the exclusion does not explicitly extend to the contents of those vehicles. The policy contains ambiguity regarding how to treat contents of vehicles destroyed by fire on the insured's property. Given that the policy covers theft from vehicles at home and covers garden contents, and applying the principle that ambiguities in insurance policies should be construed in favour of the customer, the ombudsman determined that the contents should be treated as 'garden contents' with the £2,500 limit applying. Admiral's multiple position changes and misadvice (confirmed by call recordings) further supported this interpretation. The ombudsman rejected applying the lower £1,000 'theft from motor vehicle' limit as this was not explicitly stated for fire damage.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website