A clear case of an ambiguous policy wording?
The policy’s terms and conditions, read together with the schedule, did not make it clear that a tracking device was a requirement for theft/hijacking cover.
The policy’s terms and conditions, read together with the schedule, did not make it clear that a tracking device was a requirement for theft/hijacking cover.
The insurer could not revert to the pre-inception sales discussion when subsequent developments had clearly overtaken that fact, ombud finds.
The insurer was entitled to provide security for the disputed balance of the storage costs to have the motor vehicle released and stop incurring further charges.
Annual report notes a steady increase in disputes related to power surge claims.
The Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance (Osti) found that the conclusions drawn by a tyre specialist could not be relied on to decline a policyholder’s claim. The insurer used the specialist’s findings to support […]