Partially upheld: total loss settlement valuation and misrepresentation remedy under CIDRA complaint against esure Insurance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6326042 of 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00. total loss settlement valuation and misrepresentation remedy under CIDRA complaint against esure Insurance Limited. Outcome: Partially upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6326042 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | esure Insurance Limited |
| Product | car insurance |
| Claim type | total loss settlement valuation and misrepresentation remedy under CIDRA |
| Outcome | Partially upheld |
| Remedy | esure Insurance Limited must: (1) increase the total loss settlement valuation to £48,029; (2) apply deductions from this amount to reflect the percentage of premium Mr V did not pay for misrepresenting both the November 2022 and November 2024 speeding offences in accordance with CIDRA; (3) pay interest at 8% simple interest per annum on any balance remaining after deductions, calculated from the date esure paid the interim settlement to the date of payment; (4) pay compensation within 28 days of Mr V's acceptance of the decision, with additional interest at 8% simple interest per annum if payment is made later. |
Summary
Mr V complained that esure Insurance Limited unfairly reduced his total loss settlement following a car theft claim, citing both an allegedly low valuation and esure's application of a deduction for misrepresented driving convictions. esure had discovered that Mr V failed to disclose two speeding convictions (November 2022 and November 2024) when answering a question about driving offences at policy inception in December 2024, and applied a 14.8% reduction to the settlement. The ombudsman found esure's valuation of £45,703 was unfairly below the highest motor trade guide valuation of £48,029 and required esure to increase it to that amount. However, the ombudsman upheld esure's entitlement to apply deductions for both misrepresented speeding offences under CIDRA, finding Mr V likely knew of the 2022 offence and should have disclosed the 2024 offence when he became aware in March 2025. The complaint was therefore partially upheld, with esure required to pay the higher valuation minus appropriate CIDRA deductions plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that esure's valuation of £45,703 was not fairly reached because it fell below the highest motor trade guide valuation of £48,029 and esure provided no persuasive evidence that its lower valuation would enable Mr V to purchase a like-for-like replacement vehicle. However, the ombudsman upheld esure's entitlement to apply deductions for misrepresented speeding convictions under CIDRA. Regarding the SP50 offence from November 2022, the ombudsman found it more likely than not that Mr V would have been aware of it by December 2024 given the June 2023 court hearing and fine. Regarding the SP30 offence from November 2024, while there was insufficient evidence that Mr V was aware of it by the policy inception date of 9 December 2024 (only 17 days after the offence), the ombudsman found Mr V should have disclosed it to esure in March 2025 when he became aware, as the offence date predated the policy start date and therefore constituted a change to the basis of cover that required immediate notification under the policy terms.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| esure Insurance Limited, all decisions | 1,890 | 41% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website