Not upheld: claim declined - coverage dispute complaint against Helvetia Global Solutions Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M claimed on a furniture warranty for damage to a sofa, which Helvetia declined. Mrs M initially reported the damage as staining from dye transfer but later suggested it might be a scuff. A furniture technician inspected the damage and identified it as peeling leather, not a stain or scuff. The ombudsman found that while the damage was sudden and unforeseen as required, it did not match any of the specific covered damage types (rip, tear, burn, scratch, puncture, scuff or stain). Consequently, Mrs M failed to demonstrate the damage fell within the warranty cover, and the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied a two-stage test: first, whether Mrs M demonstrated the damage fell within the warranty cover (sudden, unforeseen, and one of the specified damage types); second, whether Helvetia could rely on exclusions. The ombudsman found the damage was sudden and unforeseen but was not persuaded it was a stain, scuff, or other covered damage type - the technician identified it as peeling leather, which is inherently different. Therefore, Mrs M failed to overcome the initial hurdle of showing the damage was covered. The ombudsman also found Helvetia could not fairly rely on the cleaning product exclusion because the technician did not establish that excessive rubbing was incorrect or inappropriate use, and logically the damage predated the cleaning attempt.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website