Farm Decision Reference 2022-0224

• Case Outcome: Rejected
• Reference: 2022-0224
• Date: 04 July 2022
• Year: 2022
• Subject Matter: Farm
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Rejection of claim - non-disclosure

Decision Ref:

2022-0224

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Farm

Conduct(s) complained of:

Rejection of claim - non-disclosure

Outcome:

Rejected

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainant complains that the Provider wrongfully and/or unreasonably voided his

policy of insurance ab initio, on the basis of material non-disclosure.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that in good faith he entered into the contract of insurance with

the Provider in 2013, and that that he disclosed details of all of his previous claims to his

broker, at the at the time of policy proposal.

He submits that the policy of insurance was renewed in 2014 and that he subsequently

submitted two claims under the insurance policy to the Provider, one in respect of a personal

injury incident and one for a broken television.

In relation to the personal injury accident claim which he submitted, he states that he had

to hire a contractor to run his business for a period of time and he says that he was informed

by the Provider that the cost of this would be covered under his claim, which would be paid

in full. The Complainant submits that he proceeded to pay the contractor to run the farm,

“on the strength of the settlement of the claim”.

The Complainant contends that the fact the Provider settled the claim in respect of a broken

television, in September 2014, was “a clear indicator that there was nothing wrong with the

Policy”. He contends that it would have been otherwise impossible to have made a

successful claim on the policy, which he was subsequently told never existed.

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

The Complainant submits that it is “totally unacceptable” of the Provider, to have led him to

understand, whilst he was paying a contractor for ten months, that there was no problem

with the policy. Likewise, he considers it unacceptable for the Provider to have cancelled

the Policy while his solicitor was trying to make contact with it, within the time frame

indicated by the Provider.

The Provider’s Case

This Provider notes that the policy in question was incepted through a Broker on 01

December 2013. It says that the submission forwarded with the Complainant’s proposal

form, made no mention of previous personal accident claims made.

The Provider submits that the covering letter which issued to the Complainant through his

Broker, at the inception of his policy with the Provider, detailed that:

"This document has been prepared on the basis of the information given by you or your

insurance broker and forms part of your Contract of Insurance (see Note)

Note:

The information you provided must have been given to the best of your knowledge and

belief. You should provide us with all relevant facts which may influence us as to

whether we accept your insurance, on what terms and conditions and at what

premium. If you are in any doubt whether a particular fact is relevant, you should still

declare it. Failure to disclose all material information or disclosures of false information

could result in the Policy becoming void in which case we would not be liable to pay

any claim. We recommend that you keep a record (including copies of letters) of all

information supplied"

The Provider submits that after the Complainant incepted cover with the Provider in late

2013, a personal injury claim was then notified to it on 23 March 2015. It says that as part

of its investigation into the claim, it discovered that the Complainant had made three

personal injury claims on his previous insurance cover, which had not been disclosed to it

when his policy had been incepted with the Provider in 2013. The claims details were:

2010/2011- Personal Accident - €400

2012/2013 - Personal Accident - €2,874.29

2012/2013 – Personal Accident - €2,600.00

The Provider says that if it had been made aware of these claims at the relevant time when

the Complainant proposed for cover, it would not have agreed to provide insurance cover

to him, because these claims placed him outside of its new business acceptance criteria.