Financial Ombudsman Service decision

Covea Insurance plc · DRN-5940216

Pet InsuranceComplaint not upheldDecided 23 April 2026
Get your free legal insight →Email to a colleague
Get your free legal insight on this case →

The verbatim text of this Financial Ombudsman Service decision. Sourced directly from the FOS published decisions register. Consumer names are reduced to initials by FOS at point of publication. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original decision.

Full decision

The complaint Ms W complains Covea Insurance plc has refused to meet a claim she made on a pet insurance policy. It has instead cancelled the policy and refunded the premiums paid. What happened The details of the complaint are well known to both parties, so I won't repeat them in full again here. Instead, I'll focus on providing my reasons for my decision. In summary, while it investigated claims Ms W made on the policy, Covea noticed her dog’s veterinary history mentioned behavioural issues had been observed in the past. It said Ms W agreed to a statement when taking out the policy that no behavioural issues had been identified. It said had she completed the application correctly; she would not have been able to agree to this statement and a policy would not have been offered to her. 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. • The relevant law I need to consider here is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure Representations) Act 2012 (CIDRA). This sets out that where a consumer provides incorrect information when applying for a policy, and an Insurer can show it would have done something differently had it known the correct information, the Insurer can take that action as a remedy. • Here Covea has shown that when applying for the policy Ms W agreed to the following statement “Your dog(s) have never attacked, bitten, or shown aggressive tendencies towards another person or animal, or have ever had any concerns raised about their behaviour”. • Having reviewed the veterinary notes, I can see there are several references to Ms W’s dog’s behaviour in the past, the first in December 2023 referring to it being “snappy, grumbly and grumpy, unusual change in behaviour”….in June 2023 as .. “started kitchen guarding kitchen, seems unsettled grumbly and snappy usually around 7”…. And in July 2023 as “Kitchen guarding and would not allow O into the kitchen at all, would run at O and snap”.. “Will growl and bark in crate, if O stays in kitchen, if out of room is fine”.. • In July 2023 the notes say Ms W had taken her dog to a dog trainer/ behaviourist, and they had queried if the behaviour could be related to pain. The vet concluded “This dog is not sore on morning or after exercise hard to justify behaviour is due to pain” The following suggestion was made. • “Suggest qualified behaviourist. trail[sic] calmex and can continue with paracetamol but poss try afternoon only as only shows this behaviour on an evening. Also worth moving the crate into different area and see if behaviour changes”.

-- 1 of 2 --

• Ms W said she didn’t think these issues were relevant to the statement she agreed to, as she put her dog’s behaviour down to either being in pain or underlying medical conditions. While I appreciate what she’s explained, I must consider whether she reasonably knew or ought to have known the statement was incorrect. And, having reviewed the veterinary history, I’m satisfied she should not have agreed to the statement regarding her dog having never shown such behaviour. • Covea has provided evidence to show that had Ms W indicated she did not agree with the statement, she would not have been offered a policy. As such, under the relevant Act it is entitled to treat her policy as if it didn’t exist. I find therefore it has fairly cancelled it and refunded the premiums she has paid. • I know Ms W is unhappy about how Covea dealt with her claims up to that point, she said they confused matters and were trying to find any reason to avoid paying her claims. However I’ve found they were entitled to cancel her policy, which means her claims experience, while upsetting for her, is not something I can now compensate for. For these reasons I do not uphold this complaint. My final decision My final decision is I do not uphold Ms W’s complaint against Covea Insurance plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Ms W to accept or reject my decision before 23 April 2026. Alison Gore Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --