FSPO – Decision Ref: 2018-0190 – Agricultural vehicle insurance claim
The Complainant holds an Agricultural vehicle insurance policy with the Insurance company, which provides cover in respect of a number of his named agricultural machinery.
The Complainants Case
While moving some mower on the farm, the mower came in contact with a stone and it damaged the bed of the mower. As a result the bed of the mower started to leak oil. He has been using the mower for last 6 years and never had any problems with it but there had been some welding done by the previous owner. The insurance Assessor inspected the mower twice and made a decision that it was wear and tear and that the Insurance Company was not liable under an Agricultural vehicle insurance claim. The complainant does not accept this and states that fully comprehensive insurance was recommended for him by Insurers staff members and she reassured him that all machinery was fully covered under a comprehensive insurance policy. The Complainant wants the bed of the mower covered to be fixed and his complaint is that the Company wrongly or unfairly declined his insurance under his an Agricultural vehicle insurance policy.
The Insurers Case
The Assessor’s report advised:
“Whilst examine the mower it was noted that the bed has evidence of having been previously repaired numerous times. There are areas of welded sections and the underside of the cutter bed is extensively worn. As this damaged bed is due to wear and tear it is our opinion that the insurer had no liability”.
The Assessor stated that the mechanical failure to the mower was due to wear and tear, a cause excluded from cover under the terms and conditions of the policy.
The Insurer is satisfied that it declined the Complainants claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.
The policy document states as follows:
The Company shall not be liable to pay for:
- Loss of use, depreciation, wear and tear, mechanical and/or electrical and/or electronic breakdowns, failures or breakages.
The Complainant did not accept that the damage was due to wear and tear. The Insurer’s agent during a telephone call advised the Complainant that he could arrange at his own cost for a different Assessor to examine his mower. There is no evidence that the Complainant doing so.
The FSPO accept that it was reasonable for the Insurer, based on the evidence provided, to conclude that the damage to the Complainants mower was due to wear and tear and accept that the Insurer declined the Complainants claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy on his Agricultural vehicle insurance claim.
The FSPO does not uphold this complaint.