Assurant General Insurance Limited · DRN-5485952

The complaint Mr K is unhappy with what Assurant General Insurance Limited did after he made a claim on his mobile phone insurance policy. What happened In January 2025 Mr K claimed on his policy as his phone had been damaged. Assurant accepted the claim and sent him a replacement. Mr K contacted it to say the replacement had a physical SIM whereas his previous phone had been e-SIM only. He also said while texting the phone was lagging. The following day he contacted Assurant again and said he’d experienced further problems and the phone was now freezing and switching off. Assurant asked him to return the phone which Mr K did. Assurant says the phone had impact damage meaning the 12 month warranty it offered was invalid. And it thought it likely the damage had caused the fault. So it said Mr K would need to log a new claim (and pay a further excess) or it could return the phone unrepaired to him. In response to concerns Mr K raised it accepted that advice was wrong because he’d already made the maximum number of claims allowed by his policy in the last 12 months. It said it would honour any claim Mr K made for his phone and waive the excess fee. And it offered to pay him £50 in recognition of the inconvenience it caused. Our investigator didn’t think providing a phone with a physical SIM where the previous phone had been e-SIM only gave Mr K a device of equivalent specification. She didn’t think Assurant had shown the damage to the replacement phone was the cause of the issues Mr K reported with it. And she didn’t think Assurant had shown the replacement phone was in full working order prior to it being sent to him. She said Assurant should provide him with a replacement of equivalent specification to his original device. Or if Mr K had already bought a replacement phone Assurant should arrange a cash settlement. She also thought Mr K had been caused inconvenience and distress including by Assurant telling him he’d caused damage to the phone without evidence of that. She thought it should pay £250 in recognition of the impact of that on him. Assurant didn’t agree. It thought it had provided a replacement which met the terms and conditions of the policy. It didn’t think the difference in SIM capability impacted the functionality of the phone. And the device that was returned to it did have physical damage. So it thought it had acted correctly in saying the warranty it provided had been voided. It said the replacement had passed a full quality check before being sent to Mr K and it thought it more likely the damage occurred after the phone was received by him. It thought the remedy it had already offered was appropriate in this case. I issued a provisional decision on the complaint earlier this month. In summary I said:

-- 1 of 4 --

The relevant rules and industry guidelines say Assurant has a responsibility to handle claims promptly and fairly. It shouldn’t reject a claim unreasonably. I’ve looked first at the terms and conditions of Mr K’s policy. That says: “If your mobile and/or gadget is damaged or breaks down Assurant will either: • repair the mobile and/or gadget, or • replace it with a mobile and/or gadget of the same make and model. If Assurant cannot do this you will be given a choice of models with an equivalent specification.” In relation to a replacement device it says: “This is not ‘new for old’ insurance, and replacement mobile and/or gadgets will come from fully refurbished stock (not brand new). Before Assurant send any mobile and/or gadgets to settle a claim, Assurant undertake a comprehensive checking process to ensure they are in full working order. All mobile and/or gadgets will come with a 1-year warranty. Assurant will attempt to replace your mobile and/or gadget with one of the same colour but Assurant can’t guarantee to do this or replace any limited or special edition mobile and/or gadget”. I don’t think there’s any dispute Mr K had a valid claim under his policy as Assurant has provided him with a replacement. But I understand that had a different SIM capability to his previous one (Mr K says it had a physical SIM rather than an e-SIM). However, as I understand all iPhones in the UK of the model Mr K had have e-SIM capability I’m not persuaded that means a suitable replacement wasn’t provided. That might be the case if Mr K could show he had a particular need for the SIM capability his previous phone offered but he hasn’t mentioned that in his contact with Assurant (and didn’t reference that issue in the complaint he made to us). The key issue giving rise to Mr K’s complaint is that the phone he was sent as a replacement didn’t work properly. Assurant believes it sustained damage after it was sent to Mr K and appears to be suggesting that in itself invalidated the warranty it provided. I’ve not seen the detail of that warranty but I don’t think that is the issue here. I think the key question is whether Assurant has correctly and fairly carried out Mr K’s contract of insurance; did it provide him a replacement phone that was in good working order? Central to that is therefore what caused the damage to Mr K’s phone and whether that was the cause of the problems he reported with it. Assurant says (in line with the terms and conditions of its policy) it would have carried out a quality check on the replacement phone to ensure it was in full working order. However, it hasn’t provided any details to show what checks were carried out in this case (and Mr K specifically asked it for information on this as part of his complaint to it). Mr K has also evidenced that the screen on his phone was replaced prior to it being sent to him. There’s no issue with that in itself (the policy allows for a refurbished model to be provided). But it does provide an alternative explanation as to how damage could have been caused to the phone. Overall, I don’t think Assurant has evidenced, as part of its investigation, that this phone was in good working order when sent to Mr K. In addition, I don’t think Assurant has shown the damage it subsequently found to the phone was the cause of the problems Mr K reported with it. It says that phone had a “large dent” on the top corner of it. However, I’ve reviewed the photographs it sent and while there’s clearly some marking and damage to the corner of the phone, I’m not sure that could reasonably be described as a large dent. And while Assurant has said it’s extremely likely the damage that was present caused the fault I’m not clear what it’s basing that on; it doesn’t appear to have, for example, a report

-- 2 of 4 --

from an engineer in support of that position. In fact it doesn’t appear to have carried out any further inspection of the phone once it identified there was damage to it. I’m not satisfied Assurant has shown that, on balance, it was likely the phone was in good working order when it was sent to Mr K or that the damage to it is what caused the problems he subsequently reported. And I think it’s already had an opportunity to do so. I’ve therefore gone on to think about what it needs to do to put things right. I think it should have agreed to repair or replace the phone it sent Mr K without any further cost to him. And while it didn’t initially agree to do that it did say it would in the final response it sent him on 19 February. I think it would have been open to Mr K to accept that offer if he’d wanted his phone repaired or replaced. And that’s something Assurant should now do if he returns the phone to it. I don’t think it would be fair to expect Assurant to provide a replacement phone or offer a cash settlement as our investigator recommended. That would put Mr K in a better position than he would have been but for what it got wrong; Mr K would then have the equivalent of two replacement phones. However, I do agree he’s been caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience by what Assurant got wrong. I think that goes beyond the issues Assurant identified in its final response; it didn’t recognise there it had said he was likely responsible for the damage to his phone without having evidence to support that. I think that will have been upsetting for Mr K and I also think there was then some delay in Assurant agreeing it would repair or replace his phone without charging an excess. Taking all of that into account I think the £250 our investigator recommended is appropriate in this case. Putting things right If Mr K returns the replacement phone to Assurant it will need to arrange for that to be repaired or replaced without any excess to be paid. It will also need to pay Mr K a total of £250 (inclusive of the £50 it already offered in its final response). Reponses to my provisional decision Assurant didn’t have any further comments. Mr K didn’t agree with what I said. He thought the cost of the replacement phone he bought should be refunded as he’d had to buy that because of the delays by Assurant. He said he’d borrowed money in order to do so. And while he could sell the phone Assurant supplied once repaired a fairer outcome would be for him to return that to Assurant and be reimbursed for the cost of his new phone. So I need to reach a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I recognise Mr K feels Assurant should reimburse him for the replacement phone he bought. But I don’t agree that would be a fair outcome. Assurant said from the outset it would carry out a further repair or replacement to the phone it supplied. Initially it said Mr K would need to pay a further excess for that which I agree was wrong. But it would have been open to Mr K to do that and then make a complaint about having to do so. I don’t think Mr K needed to buy a replacement of his own because of what Assurant got wrong.

-- 3 of 4 --

In my view the settlement of the complaint I set out in my provisional decision remains a fair way of putting things right. So if f Mr K returns the replacement phone to Assurant it will need to arrange for that to be repaired or replaced without any excess to be paid. It will also need to pay Mr K a total of £250 (inclusive of the £50 it already offered in its final response). My final decision I’ve decided to uphold this complaint. Assurant General Insurance Limited will need to put things right by doing what I’ve said in this decision. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr K to accept or reject my decision before 23 May 2025. James Park Ombudsman

-- 4 of 4 --