Service Decision Reference 2025-0187

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Year: 2025
• Reference: 2025-0187
• Date: 16 December 2025
• Subject Matter: Service
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Claim handling delays or issues,Delayed or inadequate communication, Dissatisfaction with general customer service, Rejection of claim

Decision Ref:

2025-0187

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Service

Conduct(s) complained of:

Claim handling delays or issues

Delayed or inadequate communication

Dissatisfaction with general customer service

Rejection of claim

Outcome:

Partially Upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

The Complainant, a limited company trading as a vehicle crash repair and spray paint centre,

hereinafter ‘the Complainant Company’, held a Motor Trade Insurance Policy with the

Provider. The complaint refers to the Provider’s decision to refuse to admit and pay the

Complainant Company’s claim in respect of its loss, a stolen van on 18 April 2019, and the

customer service which the Provider proffered to the Complainant Company in its handling

of this matter. The policy period in which this complaint falls, is from 30 March 2019 to 29

March 2020.

The Complainant Company’s Case

The Complainant Company says that on 18 April 2019, persons unknown drove a car into its

commercial yard during business hours and broke into and stole a van. In this regard, the

Complainant Company submits in its statement to the Provider of 31 July 2019 that:

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

“Cars come and go here every day and we can keep an eye on things from the garage.

Late breakfast time, [a car] pulled in with at least two people in it. They drove up

behind the van. The van is in our view at all times, in the garage. We saw the van

moving, [name redacted] ran after the van to see if he could get to the gate. But they

speed off out the gate. [Name redacted] followed him in the van but they got away

at a crossroads”.

The Complainant Company says the incident was investigated by An Garda Siochna, who

advised that there was little hope that the stolen van would be recovered.

The Complainant Company says its Broker notified the Provider of the theft on the day it

occurred, for the purposes of making a claim under its Motor Trade Insurance Policy.

The Complainant Company says that on 12 July 2019, the Provider emailed the Complainant

Company’s Broker to advise that it was declining the claim because in order for the policy

cover to operate, there has to be forcible and violent entry to or exit from the premises as

well as forcible and violent entry to the stolen vehicle and that in this case, there was no

evidence that force or violence had been used to gain entry to the Complainant Company’s

van and to gain entry to or exit from the Complainant Company’s premises.

The Complainant Company says that later that same day, on 12 July 2019, its Broker

telephoned the Provider asking that it review its decision to decline the claim.

The Complainant Company says it appointed a Loss Assessor and the claim was calculated

to be in the amount of €19,732.12, comprising of €15,040.65 for the replacement of the van

and €4,691.47 for the tools, equipment and miscellaneous items in the van at the time it

was stolen.

The Complainant Company says that on 1 August 2019, its Loss Assessor submitted a

Statement of Claim to the Provider, wherein the Loss Assessor stated that:

“[The Provider] appear to misunderstand the circumstances that have led to [the

Complainant Company’s] losses …

Following our investigation of the circumstances of the claim we are satisfied that

the policy should respond in this case. Our investigation with the Gardaí and [the

Complainant Company] signal that forcible and violent entry and exit are likely on

the vehicle and did occur on the exit from the property.

We request [the Provider] review [its] position and deal with the claim in full”.