Veste

Upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Fortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6440822 of 2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00. Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Fortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6440822
Decision date2026-06-19T00:00:00+00:00
FirmFortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd
ProductGAP / warranty insurance
Claim typeMotor insurance, claim handling
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyFortegra must pay the claim in full based on Ms S's submitted quote, unless it can show a network repairer within reasonable distance can carry out the repair for less. If the original quote has expired, Ms S must obtain a new quote with evidence of expiration.

Summary

Ms S claimed on her motor warranty and Fortegra attempted to limit labour costs to £50 per hour, arguing this was the rate charged by its network repairers. However, Ms S could not use any network repairer as none would complete the required work. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that the 'excess charges' clause in the policy only applies when the network can actually deliver the service at a lower cost. Since Fortegra could not demonstrate any network repairer could do the work, it must pay the full claim based on Ms S's quote.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The policy's 'excess labour charges' clause is only fair if Fortegra's network can actually provide the repair at a lower cost. Since Fortegra could not demonstrate that any network repairer within reasonable distance could complete the work, there were no excess charges to apply. The principle of limiting liability to network rates is reasonable only when the network can actually deliver the service; where it cannot, the policyholder should not be penalised for using their own repairer.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Fortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd, all decisions14154%
Motor insurance, claim handling, all decisions12,93732%
GAP / warranty insurance, all decisions91939%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website