The High Court has dismissed Conor O’Donoghue’s appeal against two findings by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO) concerning an insurance policy for an investment property that was damaged in a break-in.
In a judgment delivered on 16 October 2018, Ms Justice Baker said Mr O’Donoghue had not met the high threshold required to overturn the FSPO’s decisions. The appeal concerned findings issued on 8 December 2017 after the Ombudsman reconsidered complaints against Bank of Ireland Insurance Services (BIIS) and RSA Insurance. The High Court order dismisses the appeal against both decisions.
Mr O’Donoghue bought the property as an investment around 2005. After it was broken into and damaged on 2 November that year, he made an insurance claim. RSA later voided the policy, citing misrepresentation about the property’s occupancy.
Mr O’Donoghue accepted that the property was vacant but argued that he had sought cover for an unoccupied house. He said he told BIIS this, and that details describing the property as tenanted and regularly occupied were added to the proposal form after he signed it. He also relied on a bank statement and his estimate that the premium paid reflected cover for a vacant property.
The FSPO rejected his account of how the form was completed, finding that the system used by BIIS at the time could not print a blank form before certain information was entered. The Ombudsman also found that the occupancy declarations could not be changed in the way Mr O’Donoghue alleged. The High Court said the FSPO had credible and sufficient evidence for those conclusions, including evidence about how the proposal forms were produced.
The Ombudsman partly upheld the complaints. She found that RSA had delayed in deciding the claim, failed to keep Mr O’Donoghue informed and had provided poor customer service. She directed RSA to pay €2,000 compensation. She also found that the policy sold by BIIS was unsuitable and that Mr O’Donoghue had not been given correct information about the claims process, directing a €15,000 compensatory payment.
However, the Ombudsman rejected the central claim that RSA had wrongfully voided the policy. The High Court did not retry that dispute. It applied the appeal standard requiring a serious and significant error in the adjudicative process and concluded that Mr O’Donoghue had not established one. The judgment also noted his acceptance that no insurance product suitable for the losses he suffered was available on the market at the time.