Not upheld: policy avoidance for qualifying misrepresentation; claim refusal complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6355908 of 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00. policy avoidance for qualifying misrepresentation; claim refusal complaint against Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6355908 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance |
| Product | mobile phone insurance |
| Claim type | policy avoidance for qualifying misrepresentation; claim refusal |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. Collinson was entitled to avoid the policy and return the premiums paid. No further action required. |
Summary
Miss M complained that Collinson avoided her mobile phone insurance policy and refused her claim for accidental damage. When Miss M applied for the policy on 30 December 2025, she stated the phone was purchased in March 2023, confirming it was less than 36 months old as required. However, when she made a claim in February 2026, proof of purchase revealed the phone was actually purchased on 5 December 2022, making it over 36 months old at the time of policy inception. Miss M argued the warranty activation date should be considered the purchase date, but the ombudsman found 'purchase date' unambiguously means when an item was bought. The ombudsman upheld Collinson's decision to treat this as a careless qualifying misrepresentation and avoid the policy under CIDRA, as Collinson would not have offered the policy had they known the phone's true age.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that 'purchase date' is unambiguous and clearly means when an item was bought, not when it was first used or when warranty was activated. The age of an item is measured from purchase date, not first use. Miss M failed to take reasonable care by providing an incorrect purchase date without clarifying with Collinson or her phone provider beforehand. The misrepresentation was qualifying because Collinson would not have offered the policy if they had known the phone was over 36 months old. Under CIDRA, for a careless qualifying misrepresentation where the insurer would not have entered into the contract on any terms, the insurer can avoid the policy and refuse claims while returning premiums. The ombudsman rejected Miss M's argument that 'innocent misrepresentation' is a CIDRA category, confirming only deliberate/reckless or careless misrepresentations exist under CIDRA.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance, all decisions | 6 | 17% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website