Partially upheld: claim declined - condition precedent breach; poor claims handling and delays complaint against Aviva Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H claimed on his Aviva holiday chalet insurance policy for flood damage to his chalet located beside a river. Aviva declined the claim, stating the chalet was not located in a holiday park registered with the local authority, which was a condition precedent to coverage under the policy. The ombudsman found that the policy clearly required registration with the local authority and that Mr H's chalet, while part of a group with individual planning permissions and restricted to holiday use, did not meet this requirement. Although Aviva was entitled to decline the claim, they handled it poorly by unnecessarily delaying their decision for several months after receiving necessary information. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint, directing Aviva to refund the 2024/2025 premium and pay £150 compensation for poor claims handling, while rejecting Mr H's argument that the claim should be covered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that the policy clearly required the chalet to be located in a registered holiday park as a condition precedent to coverage. The evidence showed Mr H's chalet, while part of a group of chalets with individual planning permissions and restricted to holiday use, was not located in a registered holiday park with the necessary local authority registration and licence. Therefore, the condition precedent was breached and Aviva was entitled to decline the claim. However, Aviva's handling was poor - they delayed unnecessarily in making their decision after receiving necessary information, causing Mr H additional distress. The fact that Aviva had previously accepted a claim for the same chalet did not obligate them to cover future claims, as that earlier acceptance was an error. Since the chalet could never have satisfied the policy condition, Mr H should not have been charged a premium for a policy he could never benefit from.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website