Astrenska Insurance Limited · DRN-6235208

The complaint Mr C complains because Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance (‘Astrenska’) hasn’t paid a claim under the ‘gadget cover’ section of his travel insurance policy. All references to Astrenska include the agents appointed to handle claims and complaints on its behalf. What happened Mr C held a travel insurance policy, with additional ‘gadget cover’, provided by Astrenska. Mr C made a claim because he lost his laptop in an airport abroad. He provided evidence that he’d reported the loss to the airport as well as a receipt and proof of ownership for the laptop. Astrenska declined the claim because it said Mr C didn’t have manufacturer security turned on for the laptop. Unhappy, Mr C complained to Astrenska. Astrenska maintained its position about the claim and apologised to Mr C for any delay in handling matters. Mr C brought a complaint to the attention of our Service. One of our Investigators looked into what had happened and said he didn’t think Astrenska had acted unfairly or unreasonably in the circumstances. Mr C didn’t agree with our Investigator’s opinion, so the complaint was referred to me to make a decision as the final stage in our process. I made my provisional decision earlier this month. In it, I said: ‘When making this provisional decision, I’m only considering the regulated activities which Astrenska is responsible for, and that is the decision to decline Mr C’s claim. Astrenska didn’t sell this policy. Responsibility for the sale of the policy lies with a different financial business. If Mr C is unhappy with how the insurance was sold, then he’d need to make a complaint to the seller of the policy in the first instance before our Service could consider the matter. I’ve carefully read and thought about all the submissions both parties have made in this case, but I won’t be addressing every complaint point raised and I’m not obliged to. Instead, reflecting our role as an informal alternative to the civil courts, I’ll only be commenting on what I think are the key issues. Industry rules set out by the regulator say insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly and shouldn’t unreasonably reject a claim. Consumer Duty principles say firms must communicate information to consumers in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading. I’ve taken these rules, alongside other relevant considerations, into account when making this provisional decision. The terms and conditions of Mr C’s ‘Gadget Upgrade’ cover say the following: ‘What is Not Covered

-- 1 of 3 --

… 4. The loss of your gadget where the manufacturer security is not switched on throughout the insured trip, including at the time of the loss. The manufacturer security must also remain enabled, and your gadget must remain associated with your manufacturer security account, throughout the claims process.’ The policy defines ‘manufacturer security’ as ‘the inbuilt security function of your gadget. For example, … ‘Find My’ or … ‘Find my Device’’. Mr C feels this exclusion only applies to security features belonging to the laptop manufacturer, and not to security features which form part of a third-party operating system. I don’t agree that it’s reasonable to interpret the exclusion in this way. I don’t think the exclusion is ambiguous and I’m satisfied the exclusion applies to Mr C’s situation. However, I’m not bound to apply a strict interpretation of the policy wording if I don’t think this produces a fair and reasonable outcome in the circumstances. I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable for Astrenska to rely on the exclusion I’ve quoted in this case, and I’ll explain why. I’m satisfied that a requirement for a policyholder to have manufacturer security such as location tracking turned on in order for an insurance claim to be covered is a significant limitation or restriction on cover. The Financial Conduct Authority’s ‘Insurance: Conduct of Business sourcebook’ (‘ICOBS’) requires a firm to provide consumers with an ‘Insurance Product Information Document’ (‘IPID’). ICOBS 6.-1.5 says the IPID must be drawn up by the manufacturer of the policy. So, the underwriter – not the seller – is responsible for the content of an IPID. An IPID sets out information about the insurance contract and must include details of what is not insured as well as details of restrictions on cover. While it wouldn’t be possible for an IPID to list every restriction on cover which applies to a policy, I’d expect a significant restriction such as one requiring location tracking to be enabled on an insured device to be contained within an IPID. The requirement to have location tracking turned on wasn’t highlighted in Astrenska’s IPID for Mr C’s travel insurance policy, and there doesn’t appear to be a separate IPID for the additional gadget upgrade. If this requirement had been highlighted, then I’m satisfied it’s likely Mr C would have acted differently – either in ensuring the location tracking which formed part of a third-party operating system was turned on or in seeking alternative cover elsewhere which didn’t have this requirement for a laptop. So, this means I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable for Astrenska to rely on this exclusion to decline Mr C’s claim. I intend to direct Astrenska to now pay the claim together with interest. For the avoidance of doubt, Mr C has explained why he has been unable to provide a serial number for the laptop. Given that Mr C has provided what I consider to be sufficient proof of ownership for the laptop, as well as proof of loss, I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable in the circumstances for Astrenska to also require a laptop serial number before paying the claim. I’ve considered the impact of Astrenska’s decision to decline the claim on Mr C. I think Mr C

-- 2 of 3 --

has experienced disappointment as well as annoyance and inconvenience, which he has gone to some effort to try to resolve. So, I also think it would be fair and reasonable for Astrenska to pay Mr C £150 compensation to reflect this.’ Mr C accepted my provisional decision. Astrenska didn’t and said once again that it isn’t responsible for the sale of the policy or for the IPID. 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. My provisional decision acknowledged that Astrenska isn’t responsible for the sale of the policy. I have explained that Astrenska, as the manufacturer of the policy, is responsible for the content of the IPID. While Astrenska’s agent might not be directly responsible for the content of the IPID, it is acting on Astrenska’s behalf. My provisional findings explained why I’d expect to see an exclusion such as the one Astrenska is relying on outlined in an IPID. Astrenska’s response to my provisional findings doesn’t change my decision that it’s not fair or reasonable in the circumstances for Astrenska to rely on the exclusion relating to manufacturer security to turn down Mr C’s claim. So, I won’t be changing my provisional decision. Putting things right Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance needs to put things right and do the following: • pay Mr C’s claim subject to any applicable policy limit and/or excess: • add interest to the claim payment at 8% simple per annum from one month after the date the claim was made until the date the settlement is paid1: • pay Mr C £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience he experienced. Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance must pay the compensation within 28 days of the date on which we tell it Mr C accepts my final decision. If it pays later than this it must also pay interest on the compensation from the deadline date for settlement to the date of payment at 8% a year simple. My final decision I’m upholding Mr C’s complaint about Astrenska Insurance Limited trading as Collinson Insurance, and I direct it to put things right in the way I’ve outlined above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr C to accept or reject my decision before 16 April 2026. Leah Nagle Ombudsman 1 If Astrenska Insurance Limited considers that it’s required by HM Revenue & Customs to deduct income tax from that interest, it should tell Mr C how much it has taken off. It should also give Mr C a tax deduction certificate if he asks for one, so he can reclaim the tax from HM Revenue & Customs if appropriate.

-- 3 of 3 --