Not upheld: claim settlement - fairness of replacement valuation and similarity assessment complaint against Evolution Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs K complained about Evolution Insurance's settlement offer for a damaged washing machine under their household appliance warranty. Evolution offered £469 in vouchers for a replacement machine, but Mrs K objected that the proposed replacement was not similar to hers because it lacked the add wash feature and was a different colour (black instead of graphite). The ombudsman examined whether the proposed machine was 'similar' as required by the policy and found that despite the differences in colour and the missing add wash feature, the machines were substantially similar in their core specifications and functionality. The ombudsman concluded that 'similar' does not require an identical replacement and that Evolution's offer was reasonable and fair, therefore not upholding the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that 'similar' does not mean 'identical' under the policy terms. While the proposed washing machine lacked the add wash feature and differed in colour, the machines were substantially similar in capacity, spin speed, noise level, energy efficiency, and dimensions. The colour difference was deemed cosmetic and not affecting functionality. The add wash feature, while valued by Mrs K, was not considered significant enough to render the machines dissimilar overall. The ombudsman found Evolution's £469 voucher offer reasonable and that a similar machine could have been purchased with those vouchers. Regarding delay, Evolution provided information demonstrating reasonable claim progression, and the ombudsman found no unreasonable delay warranting compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website