Fortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd · DRN-6053799

The complaint Mr B complains that Fortegra Europe Insurance Company Ltd (Fortegra) has unfairly declined a claim he made on his car hire excess insurance policy. Any reference to Fortegra in this decision includes its agents. What happened Mr B purchased an annual multi-trip car hire excess insurance policy with Fortegra. Mr B unfortunately damaged a car hire while abroad, so he claimed under the policy for the costs he incurred. Mr B has had a previous complaint dealt with by our Service in which he complained about Fortegra’s initial decline of his claim. This case relates to Fortegra’s reconsideration of Mr B’s claim, and so my decision will only consider its reconsideration following our final decision of August 2025. Upon reconsidering the claim, Fortegra declined it on the basis that Mr B wasn’t eligible for the policy at the time he purchased it in March 2024. Unhappy, Mr B came to our Service for an independent review. Our Investigator thought Fortegra had declined the claim fairly. Mr B didn’t agree, so I’ve been asked to decide. 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’m aware I’ve set out the background to this complaint in less detail than the parties have presented it. I’m not going to respond to every single point raised. Instead, I’ve focused on what I find are the key issues here. I assure both parties, however, that I’ve read and considered everything they’ve provided. Firstly, I want to reassure Mr B that when making a decision on a complaint, I do so by reference to what, in my opinion, is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case. In considering what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, I have taken into account relevant laws and regulations; regulators’ rules, guidance and standards; codes of practice and (where appropriate) what I consider to be good industry practice at the time. The starting point is the insurance policy terms and conditions which form the contract of insurance between Fortegra and Mr B. The terms of the policy under ‘Eligibility’ say the following: “At the time of purchase of this policy, You are a Permanent Resident in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Gibraltar”. Section 4 of the policy terms titled ‘General Exclusions applicable to the whole policy’ go on to say:

-- 1 of 3 --

“The following exclusions apply across Your whole policy. We will not pay any claim, or be liable for, any of the following: 1. For any claims or costs where You or the hire vehicle fails to meet the eligibility requirements for this policy”. I think the above terms make clear that in order to be eligible for the policy, the policyholder needs to be a permanent resident of the UK. In his message of January 2025, Mr B told Fortegra the following: ‘I’m seeing now that the policy only includes living in UK. I live in Israel but I’m a British citizen and my business is in UK. So I am leaving up to you if you’re obligated to give me anything’. As a result of Mr B’s above statement, Fortegra requested he provide evidence showing his UK residency at the time he took out the policy. Mr B was unhappy about this and said that his above statement was taken out of context. He said he was referring to a short visit to Israel and he was simply informing Fortegra of his location at that time. However, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Fortegra to query Mr B’s residency at the time of the policy purchase given his above statement. Mr B didn’t say he was in Israel temporarily as he’s now suggesting. He said he lived in Israel but that he’s a British Citizen. Citizenship isn’t part of the policy eligibility criteria but UK residency is. And it seems to me Mr B had concerns this would impact his claim under the policy as he said he was leaving it up to Fortegra to decide if it was obligated to give him anything. The policy defines ‘Permanent Resident’ as: “The country where You are ordinarily permanently resident for more than six (6) months of the current year, pay tax or are registered with a medical practitioner”. Bearing in mind the above policy definition, I don’t think it was unreasonable for Fortegra to request that Mr B provide it with a letter from a medical practitioner which confirmed his address and six months of utility bills for the period between March 2024 and September 2024. And I don’t think it was unreasonable for Fortegra to say the documents Mr B provided didn’t prove his UK residency during the relevant time period. I say this because the GP letter Mr B provided showed he was registered with them since October 2024, so after the policy was taken out. He then provided another GP letter showing a different date (October 2010) with no explanation for the discrepancy in the dates. Mr B said he couldn’t provide utility bills in his name as he lives with his parents but he provided a bank statement and an electoral services letter. I don’t think it was unfair for Fortegra to say these two documents didn’t prove Mr B was a UK resident at the time he took out the policy as these simply show he has a UK bank account and applied to be added to the electoral register in 2022. Given the lack of supporting documentation, Fortegra engaged an independent investigator in September 2025 to verify Mr B’s eligibility at the time of the policy purchase. The report stated they found no evidence that could confirm Mr B was a resident of the UK at the time he purchased the policy. So, I don’t think it was unfair for Fortegra to decline the claim on the basis Mr B has been unable to prove he was eligible to purchase the policy. Mr B has argued that Fortegra has provided no documentary evidence showing he wasn’t a UK resident at the time of purchase. But the onus isn’t on Fortegra to show that. The onus is on Mr B to provide evidence to support the information he gave when he took out the policy,

-- 2 of 3 --

when asked to do so by his insurer. This includes when it seeks to validate a claim as is the case here. Fortegra has provided a screenshot of the information Mr B would’ve seen when he applied for the policy online and this stated the following: “Residence We are only able to sell You a policy if you are permanently resided in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), the Channel Islands, Isle of Man or Gibraltar”. It then goes on to give the same residency definition provided in the policy booklet. In order to purchase the policy, Mr B would have needed to confirm that he was a UK resident at the time of the policy application. But as Mr B hasn’t been able to evidence the information he gave at the time of purchase was correct, I don’t think it was unfair for Fortegra to decline his claim. Fortegra has advised if Mr B is able to provide other relevant documents such as a P45 or P60 for the relevant time period, it would be willing to reconsider his claim. I think this is reasonable. For the above reasons, I’m satisfied Fortegra acted fairly and reasonably in declining Mr B’s claim. In its letter of September 2025, Fortegra said it would refund the policy premium which I think is reasonable. Should Mr B decide he doesn’t wish to proceed with his claim by providing the evidence Fortegra has asked for, he should promptly contact Fortegra to arrange this refund. My final decision My final decision is that I don’t uphold Mr B’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr B to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Linda Tare Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --