Not upheld: claim settlement / policy limit application complaint against esure Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C complained that esure paid only £15,000 to settle his claim for stolen jewellery and coins, despite the items being worth significantly more. esure had set a sub-limit of £15,000 for unspecified valuables under the policy. The ombudsman found that esure clearly communicated this limit through the policy schedule and that the term 'valuables' would reasonably be understood to include jewellery and coins. Although inflation increased the value of the items between renewal and claim, the ombudsman found this did not make esure's application of the stated policy limit unfair. The complaint was not upheld, and esure's offer of £275 compensation for distress and inconvenience was accepted as reasonable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that esure clearly communicated the policy limits and sub-limits through the policy schedule. The term 'valuables' would be reasonably understood by an ordinary consumer to include jewellery and coins, particularly given Mr C had himself specified an engagement ring as a valuable item. The schedule contained adequate warnings about checking details carefully. While inflation may have caused the items to be worth more at claim time than at renewal, this does not make esure's application of the stated policy limit unfair. The £275 compensation for distress and inconvenience was reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website