AmTrust Specialty Limited · DRN-5976731

The complaint Mr A is unhappy with the decision by AmTrust Specialty Limited (AmTrust) following a claim under his gadget insurance policy following the loss of his camera. AmTrust is the underwriter of this policy. AmTrust has accepted it is accountable for the actions of agents involved in the claim. In my decision, any reference to a company instructed during the claims process includes AmTrust. What happened Mr A’s gadget policy covers accidental loss. The terms of cover explain: Information Disclosure Throughout the claim process you are required to always be open and honest when providing answers. Failure to do so may result in your claim being declined. The facts of Mr A’s claim are well known to be parties. So, I haven’t repeated them in detail here. Mr A complained to AmTrust after it declined to pay for his claim for the loss of his camera. AmTrust considered Mr A’s complaint but didn’t offer to do anything in settlement of Mr A’s complaint. Mr A was unhappy with this decision, and so brought his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman service for investigation. The Investigator found that AmTrust had acted fairly in reaching its decision on Mr A’s claim. Mr A didn’t agree with the Investigator’s findings. As the complaint couldn’t be resolved it has been passed to me for decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. I thank Mr A for taking the time to explain his personal circumstances and everything that has happened since making his claim in July 2025. I recognise it has been a difficult time for Mr A, and he has continued to feel the impact of what has happened long after. I’d like to reassure the parties that although I’ve only summarised the background to this complaint, so not everything that has happened or been argued is set out above, I’ve read and considered everything that has been provided. Mr A says AmTrust has unreasonably declined cover for his lost camera when he has provided all the evidence requested. Mr A says AmTrust has continually found reasons to challenge his claim and its most recent request for his claims history with other insurers is irrelevant to the claim in question concerning his lost camera.

-- 1 of 2 --

It’s important to explain my role is to consider whether AmTrust has acted fairly in its decision to decline Mr A’s claim with the evidence presented. So, I’ve looked at the evidence provided to decide whether its actions have been reasonable. As both sides know the full details and circumstances surrounding this case, I won’t go over all the finer details here. It's not disputed that Mr A has had several claims with both Amtrust and at least one other insurer. Amtrust arranged a telephone interview with Mr A to discuss his claim concerning his lost camera. During this interview, AmTrust asked Mr A to explain: - The circumstances around Mr A’s claim from May 2025 with the same claims administrator dealing with his lost camera claim. The previous claim concerned a lost mobile phone which was subsequently found. Amtrust asked how the device had been found after being reported as lost. Mr A said he couldn’t remember. - Further details about Mr A’s claims history with another insurer, D. Mr A said he had made a number of claims with D in the last three years. He recalled the last claim was in the current calendar year in 2025 and had been successful. Mr A said he didn’t see the relevance in disclosing full details about the other claims. - Mr A’s occupation. Mr A didn’t answer this question. Mr A didn’t provide any credible responses to the questions about his previous claims history, and current occupation. During the call Mr A said ‘I only want to answer necessary questions.’ We’d expect an insurer to investigate a claim to ensure that the policy terms have been met before any decision to pay the claim is made. Given the value of Mr A’s claim, and previous claims history, I’m persuaded the level of scrutiny and interrogation of Mr A’s claims history was reasonable and proportionate, and in line with what we’d expect for a claim of this type. AmTrust’s investigation led to material concerns about the validity of Mr A’s lost camera claim. AmTrust made several attempts to understand more about Mr A’s claims history in order to validate Mr A’s claim. I haven’t seen any compelling or credible evidence from Mr A to answer AmTrust’s concerns about the claim. So I think its decision to decline the claim until further information is provided is fair. Having considered Mr A’s representations alongside AmTrust’s concerns about the claim, I’m satisfied AmTrust’s actions have been fair, and in line with what we’d expect in the circumstances. Based on the current evidence, I won’t be asking AmTrust to reconsider, or pay anything in settlement of, Mr A’s claim for the lost camera. It is for Mr A to decide whether he wants to AmTrust to reconsider his claim by providing the requested information. My final decision For the reasons provided I do not uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Neeta Karelia Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --