The storm, the shed and the wrong 'no'

Ground 1 – Misrepresentation (Consumer Insurance Contracts Act 2019). Aoife answered a clear question inaccurately. This is at least careless: she had made a claim, and the question was unambiguous. Avoidance and outright refusal are available only if the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless - unlikely on these facts, since the claim was with a known insurer and easily discovered.

The careless remedy is proportionate and based on premium: €430 ÷ €560 = 0.768 €14,000 × 0.768 = €10,750

Ground 2 – Average. She insured €280,000 against a €360,000 reinstatement cost: €280,000 ÷ €360,000 = 0.778 €14,000 × 0.778 = €10,889

Ground 3 – Interaction. Average is a policy condition reducing the loss; the proportionate remedy reduces the insurer's liability for its reliance on the wrong answer. Applying both is defensible but must be transparent: €14,000 × 0.778 × 0.768 ≈ €8,361 (less any policy excess)

The honest answer is a range from €8,361 to €10,889, with the insurer obliged to explain which mechanism it has used and how. Applying both without explanation is the complaint risk. Note the interest point: the €3,200 claim is well within five years, so the disclosure duty was engaged.

Yes - separate perils, separate sections, separate decisions.

• Theft from an unlocked shed engages the security condition. Most household policies exclude theft from outbuildings unless force and violence was used, or require the shed to be locked; an unlocked shed is a straightforward declinature on that section.
• The bicycle may also fall under a specified-items or valuables limit, requiring it to be listed and insured separately. If it is not listed, the maximum may be far below €2,400 even before the security issue.
• The storm damage to the buildings is an unrelated peril. Insurers routinely settle one section and decline another; the existence of the theft does not taint the storm claim.

What Aoife should be told: which condition is being relied on, in writing; the exact clause; the amount that would have been payable but for the condition; and her right to complain.

Watch for a trap: if the bicycle claim is also tainted by the same careless misrepresentation about prior claims, the insurer may try to apply the proportionate remedy to it as well. That is arguable but only after the cover question is decided - if the loss is excluded by the security condition, the misrepresentation question never arises.

Internal complaints handling (Consumer Protection Code).

• Acknowledge the complaint within 5 business days.
• Provide a written update at least every 20 business days.
• Attempt to resolve and issue a final response within 40 business days of the complaint.
• At that point, or if 40 business days pass, tell her she may refer the matter to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, with the contact details.

FSPO. She must generally complain within 6 years of the conduct, or 3 years from when she became aware of it. The FSPO can award compensation and direct the insurer to pay a claim. Its decisions are binding on the insurer once accepted by the complainant, subject to appeal to the High Court.

The substantive points she can argue:

• The online form gave no explanation of what counted as a claim, and she may genuinely not have treated a €3,200 escape-of-water claim as 'hers' if it was in a partner's name.
• The premium discount for buying online (20%) suggests limited advice; the question of whether the insurer's question was clear enough is live.
• On average, the insurer asked her to read the valuer's report and set the sum insured itself by a calculator; if so, the underinsurance argument is weakened and the insurer's own guidance may be challenged.

Practical step: request the full underwriting file and the proposal audit trail before engaging on quantum. Do not advise her to accept €8,361 until the average point is tested.