Not upheld: policy voidance for misrepresentation; claim refusal complaint against Haven Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R complained that Haven unfairly voided his motor insurance policy and refused to pay his claim after his car was stolen. Haven had discovered that Mr R failed to disclose his part-time work as a professional sportsman when applying for the policy, stating instead that he was a mechanic with no other employment. During the claim investigation, Mr R admitted to being a professional sportsman working part-time, contradicting his application. Mr R argued to this Service that his sporting contract had ended before the policy began, but failed to provide evidence despite being asked. The ombudsman found that Mr R made a qualifying misrepresentation and that Haven was entitled under CIDRA 2012 to void the policy, as it would not have offered cover had the true occupation been disclosed. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr R made a misrepresentation by providing inconsistent information about his occupation. At application, he stated he was a mechanic with no part-time work; during the claim investigation, he stated he was a professional sportsman working part-time. Although Mr R argued to this Service that his sporting contract had ended before policy inception, he failed to provide evidence to support this claim despite being asked. The ombudsman considered it was in Mr R's interests to provide such evidence and that obtaining it should have been straightforward. The misrepresentation was qualifying because Haven confirmed it would not have offered the policy had the true occupation been disclosed. Under CIDRA 2012, Haven was entitled to void the policy in these circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website