Upheld: Travel / life insurance claim disputes complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Miss R purchased contents insurance from AXA and claimed for an £8,000 watch stolen in a burglary. AXA declined the claim citing a policy exclusion requiring watches worth more than £5,000 to be kept in a locked safe or under personal supervision when not being worn. Miss R complained that this significant condition was not clearly disclosed to her at purchase, particularly as she had indicated she did not have a safe. The ombudsman found that while AXA displayed a warning about the safe requirement on its direct website, Miss R had applied through a price comparison aggregator where the warning was not shown because item values were pre-populated. AXA confirmed it could not be certain Miss R saw the warning. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding it unfair for AXA to rely on the condition when Miss R had not been adequately informed, and directed AXA to settle the claim and pay £200 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the safe condition was part of the purchased policy and included in the policy booklet, it was a significant and onerous term that required appropriate highlighting at the point of sale. AXA's own practice of displaying an information box on its direct website demonstrated that it recognized the importance of highlighting this condition. However, because Miss R applied through an aggregator website where item values were pre-populated, she would not have seen the warning box unless she clicked back into the question set, which was unlikely. AXA could not evidence that Miss R was presented with the safe condition warning. Given that most customers would not have a safe and would need to take extra steps to comply, the ombudsman concluded it was unfair for AXA to rely on this condition to decline the claim when Miss R had not been made aware of it during the sales process. Had Miss R been aware of the condition, she likely would have either sought alternative cover or obtained a safe.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website