Upheld: claim decline and policy cancellation based on alleged misrepresentation complaint against Covea Insurance plc
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6330808 of 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00. claim decline and policy cancellation based on alleged misrepresentation complaint against Covea Insurance plc. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6330808 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Covea Insurance plc |
| Product | pet insurance |
| Claim type | claim decline and policy cancellation based on alleged misrepresentation |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Covea must: (1) reinstate the policy and remove any cancellation record from internal or external databases; (2) pay the claim in line with policy terms, subject to Mr J paying correct premiums to bring the policy up to date; (3) pay interest at 8% per annum simple on vet fees paid by Mr J from the date paid to the date of payment; (4) pay total compensation of £250 (£150 additional if the previously offered £100 has already been paid). |
Summary
Mr J purchased a pet insurance policy online in April 2025, selecting 'crossbreed' as his dog's breed. When he made a claim a few months later, Covea declined it and cancelled the policy, alleging Mr J had misrepresented the breed as the dog's documentation referred to it as a labrador. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Mr J had taken reasonable care in selecting 'crossbreed' based on information from the animal rescue charity that one parent was a known labrador and the other was unknown. The ombudsman found Mr J's reasoning was thoughtful and deliberate rather than reckless, and that the documentation was not conclusive for a rescue dog. Covea was directed to reinstate the policy, pay the claim, and provide £250 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA), which requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation. The standard is that of a reasonable consumer. The ombudsman found the breed selection question was clear and well-explained. Mr J's explanation demonstrated he had considered the options carefully: he could not select 'Pedigree' because he could not confirm both parents were the same breed, and he selected 'Crossbreed' with the dominant breed (labrador) as instructed. This reasoning showed reasonable care rather than recklessness. While documents referred to the dog as a labrador, the ombudsman found this was based on information provided at the time and was not conclusive, particularly for a rescue dog with unknown parentage. The ombudsman was more persuaded by Mr J's testimony that he had thoughtfully answered the question based on information provided by the rescue charity.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Covea Insurance plc, all decisions | 1,259 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website