Not upheld: claim settlement dispute; unfair application of policy terms and exclusions complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Mr A claimed against his home insurance policy with AXA following a burglary and disputed AXA's settlement across seven issues, including the £20,000 valuables cap, family members' possessions, and various items such as a car remote control and driveway gate key. The ombudsman found that AXA had correctly interpreted and applied the policy terms, which clearly specified what was covered and set defined limits. For each disputed item, the ombudsman determined either that the policy wording was clear and AXA had applied it correctly, or that there was no fair and reasonable basis to require AXA to pay beyond the policy's explicit scope. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman agreed with the Investigator's findings and applied a straightforward interpretation of the policy wording. For each disputed item or issue, the ombudsman found either that the policy terms were clear and AXA had applied them correctly, or that there was no fair and reasonable basis to require AXA to pay beyond what the policy explicitly covered. The ombudsman noted that where items fell outside the defined categories of cover (valuables, contents, keys and locks), or where ownership could not be proven, AXA's decisions were reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website