Society of Lloyd's · DRN-5945474

The complaint Mr H complains that Society of Lloyd’s (“SoL”) voided his jewellery insurance policy and didn’t deal with a claim he’d made on it. Reference to SoL includes its agents and representatives. What happened The circumstances of this complaint aren’t in dispute, so I’ll summarise the main points: • Mr H took out a jewellery insurance policy underwritten by SoL in 2022. It lapsed at the 2023 renewal. Shortly after, Mr H asked to reinstate the policy with a change of address, which SoL agreed to. Mr H later got in touch with SoL to make a claim following a theft. • SoL said Mr H should have disclosed a change of occupation when reinstating the policy in 2023, but hadn’t done so. As a result, SoL went on to void the 2023 policy and didn’t deal with the claim. It refunded the premiums Mr H paid for the policy. • Mr H complained. He said there were mitigating personal circumstances which SoL should take into account. He also said his change of occupation was immaterial to the theft. And he’d only been required to disclose the change ‘as soon as possible’, which was subjective, and which he’d achieved given his circumstances. • SoL noted Mr H’s personal circumstances at the relevant time and said it had taken them into consideration. It maintained its position in relation to the policy and the claim outcome. But it said there had been some avoidable delays during the claim and offered £150 compensation. • Our investigator thought SoL had acted in line with the relevant law and didn’t ask it to do anything further. • An agreement wasn’t reached, so the complaint has been passed to me. 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. • When considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances I’ve taken into account relevant law and regulations, regulators’ rules, guidance and standards, codes of practice and, where appropriate, what I consider to have been good industry practice at the time. Whilst I’ve read and taken into account everything said by both parties, I’ll only comment on the points I think are relevant when reaching a fair outcome to this dispute. That’s a reflection of the informal nature of this Service.

-- 1 of 3 --

• The main point of this complaint is whether it was fair for SoL to void the policy and decline the claim. In short, it took these steps because it didn’t think Mr H provided reasonable information when the policy was reinstated in 2023. • When looking at the information provided for a consumer policy, as was the case here, the relevant law is the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (or “CIDRA”). It places a duty on the consumer, in this case Mr H, to ‘take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation’. • In summary, if Mr H fulfilled that duty, SoL can take no action. If SoL can show he didn’t fulfil that duty, and it can show that it would have acted differently if he had fulfilled that duty, CIDRA sets out the remedies available to SoL. Depending on the circumstances, that can include voiding the policy, which means treating it as if it never existed. As a result, it can also include declining the claim. • Amongst other things, when the policy was reinstated in 2023, SoL wanted to know what Mr H’s occupation was. This is because his occupation would impact SoL’s decision to offer the policy. It won’t offer the policy to policyholders with certain occupations. This is a judgement SoL is entitled to make. It can decide which occupations it considers too risky to provide this kind of insurance for. • SoL has shared underwriting information with this Service. It’s commercially sensitive, so it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss it in detail, or to share it with Mr H. But I can assure him the information is clear and persuasive, and I’m satisfied it shows SoL wouldn’t have offered the policy – on any terms – if it had known of his change of occupation. It would have treated any other policyholder with the same occupation in the same way, so he’s been treated consistently with other policyholders and in line with SoL’s general underwriting criteria. • When the reinstated policy documents were sent to Mr H in 2023, the covering note said: “We would request that you read all of the email attachments to ensure all of the information is correct” and “Should you have any questions, changes or additions to your policy, please do not hesitate to contact [SoL].” • The attachments included the statement of fact. It said: “Please take the time to read the following and to carefully check the information… Your insurance depends upon your agreement to this” and “You must take care when answering our questions, all of which are relevant to your insurers in providing this insurance… inaccurate information may affect any claim you make … or your insurance cover being invalid”. Contact details were repeated. • In these circumstances, I’m satisfied it was made clear to Mr H the importance of checking the information, how to correct it if need be, and the potential consequences if the information was inaccurate. • The statement of fact set out the occupation Mr H gave when he first took out the policy. There’s no question that, by the time the policy was reinstated in 2023, he’d changed to an entirely different occupation. So it was inaccurate for him to leave the occupation unchanged. • Mr H notes he was asked to get in touch with SoL to correct information ‘as soon as possible’. Whilst I agree this phrase didn’t set a specific deadline, I think it was clear he should not delay contacting SoL – especially in context with the warnings about the impact on his policy of inaccurate information. When the policy was reinstated in

-- 2 of 3 --

June 2023, Mr H’s occupation had already changed. The theft occurred in March 2024, around nine months later. So I consider Mr H had more than enough time to contact SoL prior to the theft – and informing SoL of his change of occupation during the claim didn’t amount to contacting it ‘as soon as possible’. • I understand Mr H was experiencing challenging personal circumstances around the time the policy was reinstated in 2023. And that included problems with his memory. He’s said these are mitigating factors that should be taken into account. SoL noted he was able to change his address around the same time, and suggested this meant he could also have disclosed his change of occupation too. • It’s clear it was a difficult time for Mr H, and I can appreciate how his memory problems may have impacted his capacity to engage with the policy. Nonetheless, I must take into account that Mr H was able to recognise the policy had lapsed, take steps to reinstate it soon after, and to change his address. And, as noted above, the policy information was abundantly clear. So, on balance, I’m not satisfied Mr H’s personal circumstances reasonably explain his failure to disclose his change of occupation until the claim. • As the change of occupation wasn’t disclosed to SoL, I’m not satisfied Mr H met his duty under CIDRA to ‘take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation’. And, as SoL wouldn’t have offered the policy if it had known about his new occupation, it’s entitled under CIDRA to void the policy and decline the claim. • SoL has accepted that Mr H’s change of occupation didn’t directly impact the claim. But, if he’d told SoL about his change of occupation when he should have done, SoL wouldn’t have offered him a policy. So, by the time of the theft, SoL wouldn’t have been his insurer, and wouldn’t have been responsible for considering and potentially paying his claim. That’s why, under CIDRA, SoL is entitled to retrospectively void the policy and not consider the claim. • For the reasons given above, I’m satisfied SoL followed the relevant law. And that law reflects the longstanding approach of this Service. Put simply, SoL has done nothing wrong in relation to the policy or claim outcome. In these circumstances, I see no reason to require SoL to depart from the law. • SoL offered £150 compensation for some avoidable delays during the claim. I’m satisfied that’s a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances. So I won’t ask it to increase the compensation figure. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 8 April 2026. James Neville Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --