Not upheld: unfair claim decline complaint against MSIG Europe SE

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P claimed under his marine insurance policy with MSIG after a jubilee clip on his boat broke, causing saltwater ingress that seized both engines. MSIG declined the claim based on policy exclusions for gradual deterioration and machinery damage, relying on two independent marine surveying engineers' reports concluding the damage resulted from long-term corrosion of hose connections and gaskets that would have been identifiable through routine maintenance. Mr P disputed this, arguing the clip failure was sudden and accidental, and provided limited supporting evidence including sparse service records and a surveyor's email from almost a year after the incident. The ombudsman found MSIG's expert evidence more persuasive on the balance of probabilities and upheld the claim decline as fair.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the principle that when a policyholder makes a claim, they must show an insured event caused the loss, and an insurer can decline if an exclusion applies. The ombudsman weighed the evidence on balance of probabilities and found MSIG's expert evidence more persuasive. MSIG's two independent surveying engineers provided detailed, contemporaneous reports with photographic evidence explaining how long-term corrosion caused the damage over many years, which would have been identifiable through routine inspection and maintenance. In contrast, Mr P's evidence was limited to a brief email from a surveyor visiting almost a year after the incident and comments from an engineer who could not explain why the clip failed and was writing two years after inspection. The ombudsman found Mr P's maintenance records insufficient to demonstrate proper servicing had been carried out, lacking itemised invoices, parts records, and detailed work descriptions.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website