Not upheld: policy avoidance for misrepresentation; claim denial complaint against Accredited Insurance (Europe) Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that Accredited Insurance unfairly avoided her home insurance policy and declined her burglary claim after discovering her declared jewellery valuables were significantly underestimated. Accredited appointed a jewellery expert who valued the items at approximately £47,000-£50,000, compared to Mrs P's declared estimate of approximately £41,500, and found several items should have been declared separately rather than as a set. The ombudsman found the renewal documents posed clear questions with adequate guidance on obtaining professional valuations and clear warnings about consequences, and that Mrs P provided no supporting evidence for her estimates. The ombudsman upheld Accredited's decision to avoid the policy as fair and reasonable, noting that Accredited's underwriting criteria showed it would not have offered cover had accurate estimates been provided, and that returning premiums placed Mrs P in the most favourable position available.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Although CIDRA strictly applies only to statements of fact and valuations are matters of opinion, the ombudsman considered similar fairness principles. The renewal documents posed sufficiently clear questions with adequate guidance on obtaining professional valuations and clear warnings about consequences. Mrs P failed to provide reasonable estimates without any supporting professional valuation or expert evidence. The jewellery expert's valuations (adjusted to renewal date) were the most persuasive evidence available. Accredited's underwriting criteria demonstrated it would not have offered any policy had accurate estimates been provided, making avoidance fair and reasonable. By returning premiums, Accredited placed Mrs P in the most favourable position available.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website