Not upheld: claim handling and policy interpretation complaint against FORTEGRA INSURANCE UK LTD

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R claimed on his key cover insurance after losing a car key in July 2025. FORTEGRA supplied a replacement key and reprogrammed the spare key Mr R mentioned. In December 2025, Mr R requested reprogramming of two additional spare keys he had not mentioned in his original claim, which had stopped working after the July reprogramming. FORTEGRA declined to cover this cost and Mr R complained, claiming he was unable to access his car and had incurred hire costs. The ombudsman found FORTEGRA acted in line with its policy terms by only covering the keys mentioned in the original claim and rejected the hire claim as Mr R retained two working keys.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that FORTEGRA's actions in July 2025 were in line with the policy terms, as it replaced the lost key and reprogrammed the spare key mentioned in the claim. Since Mr R did not mention the two additional spare keys during his initial claim, the technician was not unreasonable in not warning about their potential deactivation. The ombudsman noted that Mr R retained two working keys from the July 2025 visit and there was no evidence these failed due to FORTEGRA's error. The policy only provides hire cover when the main key is lost and no duplicate exists, which was not the case here. The ombudsman rejected Mr R's claim for hire costs as he still had two functioning keys available.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website