Not upheld: claim rejection based on policy exclusion; handling of claim and missing items complaint against Zurich Insurance Company Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr E claimed on his motor insurance policy with Zurich after his van rolled out of a parking spot and hit a sign when a third-party employee accessed it. Zurich rejected the claim citing a policy exclusion for damage to unlocked vehicles. Mr E disputed this, arguing the damage was caused by the third party's actions and that he had locked the van. The ombudsman found that although the circumstances were unfortunate, the policy exclusion fairly applied because there was no evidence of forced entry and the third party was only able to access and damage the van because it was left unlocked. The ombudsman also rejected Mr E's complaints about claim handling delays and missing items, finding the investigation period reasonable and determining Zurich was not responsible for items that went missing while the van was in a broker-appointed recovery agent's possession.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy exclusion for damage when a vehicle is not locked fairly applied to this claim. Although Mr E claimed he locked the van, there was no evidence of forced entry and the employee's statement indicated the van was unlocked when accessed. The ombudsman reasoned that the third party was only able to cause the damage because the van was left unlocked, bringing the incident within the policy exclusion. Regarding delays, the ombudsman found the two-month investigation period reasonable given the circumstances. For the missing items, the ombudsman determined Zurich was not responsible as the items went missing while the van was in the possession of the broker-appointed recovery agent, not Zurich.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website