Insights for participants
This case demonstrates the benefits of excellent record keeping. It was quickly resolved once the clients saw the adviser’s comprehensive file. It is not unusual for people to incorrectly recollect a conversation that happened some months ago. A comprehensive record of contact can be useful for quickly resolving cases.
What happened?
Jonathan* and Jacquie* had arranged a house insurance policy through an insurance adviser for a property they owned. They did not have contents insurance.
In July 2024, Jonathan and Jacquie asked the adviser about getting contents cover for items in a storage container on the property. The adviser asked them for information, some of which he received, to obtain insurance quotes.
Over July and August 2024, Jonathan and Jacquie asked the adviser about contract works insurance, because the roof was being replaced.
In mid-September 2024, the adviser emailed Jonathan and Jacquie asking for the rest of the information needed for the contents insurance.
In October 2024, the storage container was broken into and the contents stolen.
Jacquie contacted the adviser, who said there was no contents cover in place. Jacquie said Jonathan had called him on 20 September 2024 and asked him to put contents cover in place. He was told the premium was $500. The adviser said he had not received this call.
Jonathan and Jacquie asked FSCL to investigate.
What were the parties’ views?
Jonathan and Jacquie were sure they had called the adviser on 20 September 2024 to put contents cover in place, and had understood it had been arranged for a premium of $500.
The adviser denied receiving the call. He also had not received the information needed to seek quotes from insurers. This meant he could not have told Jonathan the premium was $500. The adviser also noted it was possible that insurers would not agree to cover a container on a property. Even if an insurer was prepared to do so, the premium would be much higher.
The adviser also said that the bulk of the contents in the container were purchased under a business name, rather than under Jonathan and Jacquie’s personal names. So, if any personal contents cover was in place, Jonathan and Jacquie could not have claimed under it for stolen property that belonged to a business.
What was FSCL’s view?
The adviser provided us with a comprehensive file of their communications with Jonathan and Jacquie over 2024. This did not show a record of a call from Jonathan on 20 September 2024.
The request for contents cover had not progressed beyond the adviser asking Jonathan and Jacquie for information so the adviser could seek quotes from insurers.
We gave Jonathan and Jacquie a copy of the adviser’s file. It seemed possible to us when the complaint was made in January 2025, that Jonathan and Jacquie’s recollection of what occurred in September 2024 was inaccurate. They may have been recalling a conversation about contracts work cover.
How did FSCL suggest that the complaint should be resolved?
On reviewing the adviser’s file, Jonathan and Jacquie decided to withdraw their complaint, saying they did not have evidence to challenge what the adviser said. While they still thought the 20 September 2024 call had been made, they were aware they had not received confirmation of cover or paid a premium.
