Not upheld: warranty claim handling and excess determination complaint against AmTrust Speciality Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B complained that AmTrust incorrectly applied a higher excess (£1,000+) to his warranty claim under Section 3.3 rather than the lower excess (£100) under Section 3.2, arguing the defect originated during the construction period covered by Section 3.2. However, the warranty clearly required discovery and notification within specific timeframes for each section to apply. Since Mr B discovered and notified the problem in 2025, seven years after the warranty began in 2018, the claim fell under Section 3.3. The ombudsman found AmTrust correctly followed the warranty terms and that the excess was reasonable relative to typical claim values, declining to rewrite the contract.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the warranty contract clearly states the applicable section is determined by discovery and notification timing, not the origin of the defect. AmTrust followed the warranty terms correctly. The ombudsman noted that insurers have regulatory freedom to set excesses as they see fit, and an excess of £1,000+ is modest relative to typical claim values of £10,000+. Rewriting the warranty to apply the lower excess would be inappropriate without evidence of fundamental unfairness.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website