Not upheld: non-disclosure of material information / policy cancellation complaint against esure Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Ms M complained that esure unfairly cancelled her motor insurance policy after discovering she had failed to disclose three motoring convictions from 2024. esure had asked a clear question about driving convictions in the past 5 years, which Ms M answered 'No' to, but later discovered the non-disclosure during validation. The ombudsman applied CIDRA and found that Ms M failed to take reasonable care, the misrepresentation was qualifying (as esure would have charged significantly more), and the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless (as Ms M had included the convictions in other quotes and must have noticed the premium difference). Accordingly, the ombudsman found esure was entitled to cancel the policy and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Misrepresentation) Act 2012 (CIDRA) framework. First, it was established that Ms M failed to take reasonable care as she answered 'No' to a clear and specific question about driving convictions despite having three recent convictions from 2024, and had the opportunity to correct this error but did not contact esure until after validation was requested. Second, the misrepresentation was qualifying because esure would have offered the policy on different terms (significantly higher premium). Third, the ombudsman found the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless because Ms M knew the information was relevant to the insurer (having initially included convictions in some quotes) and must have realised the premium was significantly lower when she omitted them. Under CIDRA, an insurer is entitled to cancel a policy where a qualifying misrepresentation is deliberate or reckless.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website