Extended warranties

What we look at

• If you think your policy was mis-sold to you

  You might complain to us that you:

  • weren’t aware of – or didn’t understand  – the conditions and exclusions in your policy
  • were told at the point of sale that your policy would cover any eventuality  – rather than the specific insured risks that were actually covered

  Because extended warranties are usually sold in retail stores, there’s often a quick sales process, and no record of how the sale took place. We’ll take into account your record of the sale, and examine any documents you were given. We might say that the policy was mis-sold if your documents or sales conversation didn’t:

  • make clear what was covered by the policy
  • highlight any unusual limitations or exclusions that would reduce the cover
  • make clear that the type of damage included could have been covered by another policy you have (like contents insurance)

• If you think the wording in your policy was misleading

  You might have had a limited opportunity to understand the policy when you bought it. So we’d expect that your insurer would honour any reasonable expectation you had about the terms and conditions of the cover. As part of this we’ll consider whether the information given was clear, fair and not misleading.

• If you think an exclusion or limitation was applied to your claim when it shouldn’t have been

  You’ll need to give us evidence that your insured item is damaged or not working. You can usually do this by sending a photograph to us. If you’ve had someone from the insurance company to examine the item – we’ll consider what the report says.

  If we’re satisfied that your item is damaged or not working properly, then we’ll look at the policy to decide whether your insurer has been fair in relying on any relevant exclusion or limitation.

• Extended warranties on furniture

  Your insurer may reject your claim on the basis that the damage was down to wear and tear.

  Policies often exclude damage caused by “wear and tear consistent with the usage of the furniture”. We see complaints about insurers relying on this exclusion even when there’s:

  • wear and tear after a relatively short period of time
  • excessive loss of resiliency
  • separation of seams/stitching
  • peeling of the leather/protective coating
  • colour loss or staining

• Wear and tear after a relatively short time

  We see a lot of complaints that are rejected as wear and tear, and relate to furniture that is less than 2 years old.

  In these cases, we’d look for evidence of excessive or unusual use of the furniture. If there’s no evidence, we may decide that your insurer can only reject your claim for wear and tear reasons if the damage is consistent with the expected life-span of the item.

• Excessive loss of resiliency

  Where furniture cushions sink or collapse, we see complaints about claims rejected on the basis that this loss of resiliency wasn’t excessive – and is down to wear and tear.

  Policies may define excessive loss of resiliency as being “a flattening beyond the manufacturer’s tolerances”.

  We’ll examine any evidence of excessive or unusual use of the furniture. If we do find evidence of this, we may decide that your insurer was entitled to reject your claim.

  If you’ve had a policy for a certain time that includes cover for excessive loss of resiliency, then your insurer should meet claims for this within that period. 

• Separation of seams/stitching

  Some policies specifically state they’ll cover separation of seams and stitching. Sometimes we see complaints about claims rejected because:

  • the fabric covering the furniture has come away at the seam, but the stitching remains intact – so there’s no separation of the actual seam
  • the stitching hasn’t split, although the seam itself is coming apart

  We’ll usually say that it’s fair for you to expect that if the fabric covering the furniture comes away from, or at the seam, this shows a separation of the seam that is covered by your policy.

• Peeling of the leather/protective coating

  Where the leather or protective coating on furniture has peeled, we see complaints about claims rejected on the basis that the peeling is down to wear and tear – and is excluded under the policy.

  In these cases we examine any evidence of excessive or unusual use of the furniture. If we do find evidence of this, we may decide that it’s fair for your insurer to reject the claim.

  We also see complaints about claims rejected because:

  • it was the protective coating, rather than the leather, that peeled – meaning there was no structural defect
  • the damage was due to cracking and splitting rather than peeling – and so isn’t covered by the policy

  If we think it was fair for you to expect that these types of damage would be covered  – we’ll expect your insurer to deal with the claim.

• Colour loss or staining

  Some claims are rejected because of colour loss to, or staining of, the fabric of the furniture. If this has happened after you’ve used a cleaning kit provided to you by the insurer, then we’d usually say it wasn’t fair and reasonable for them to then reject your claim.