Eversure Limited · DRN-6256137

The complaint Mr M complains that Eversure Limited trading as cover4rentals mis-sold him a car hire excess insurance policy. What happened In mid-2025, Mr M took out a car hire excess insurance policy through Eversure which provided cover for 12 months. Shortly after, Mr M rented a vehicle whilst on holiday abroad. When he returned the vehicle, the hire company noticed a small chip on the windscreen and invoiced Mr M for the damage. So, Mr M made a claim under the policy. Eversure told Mr M his claim had been rejected because the type of vehicle he’d hired wasn’t covered by the policy. After Mr M raised a complaint, Eversure refunded his premium as a gesture of goodwill. But Mr M remained unhappy and asked the Financial Ombudsman Service to consider the matter. Our investigator thought Mr M’s complaint should be upheld. He didn’t think Eversure had clearly highlighted that the type of vehicle Mr M had hired wasn’t covered by the policy. He recommended Eversure pay Mr M the amount of his claim minus the amount it had already refunded him. Both parties disagreed with our investigator’s outcome. Mr M felt that he was still out of pocket because he’d lost out on eleven months of the cover he’d purchased. Eversure said it felt it had acted in accordance with the information available to Mr M on its website through the sales journey, as well as the policy terms and supporting documentation. So, the complaint has been passed to me to decide. 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. Having done so, I’ve reached broadly the same conclusion as our investigator. I’ll explain why. Eversure sold Mr M the policy on a non-advised basis, so it didn’t need to check it was suitable for him. However, it was still required to communicate information to Mr M in a way which was clear, fair and not misleading so he could make an informed decision before taking the policy out. Mr M’s claim was declined by the insurer because the vehicle he rented was a pickup truck and this type of vehicle was excluded from cover. Mr M says Eversure didn’t make this exclusion clear on its website when he bought the insurance. Eversure has provided screenshots showing the online sales journey Mr M completed when he took out the policy.

-- 1 of 3 --

Mr M was required to tick a box to confirm he’d read and agreed to a list of declarations. These included links to the policy wording, product information document, terms of business and policy eligibility requirements. There was also the following bullet point: • “The Rental Vehicle is a car (including 4x4s intended for use on-road), with no more than 7 seats, up to 10 years old (inclusive), with a manufacturer recommended retail price of £75,000. More information” Eversure has provided a screenshot to show what Mr M would have seen if he’d clicked on “more information”. There are four bullet points under the heading “Vehicle Excluded” including: • “Vans, pickups (including pickups with a fitted hard top canopy, minibuses, motorhomes, campervans or motorcycles.” While this information was available upon clicking the link, the wording on the declaration page itself suggested that the vehicle Mr M intended to hire would be covered. So, I don’t think Eversure made it sufficiently clear that it was excluded. I also note that this exclusion is showing within the definition of “Rental Vehicle” in the policy wording. But it doesn’t show in the Insurance Product Information Document (IPID) which is a summary of the cover. So, I’m not persuaded that the exclusion was sufficiently highlighted to Mr M. Eversure has refunded Mr M’s premium of £59.99. But I don’t think this is enough to put things right. If Eversure had given Mr M better information about what the policy covered, I think its likely he would have taken out a different policy that met his needs. So, I think it would be fair for Eversure to compensate Mr M for the financial loss he incurred from his claim not being settled. Mr M says his claim was for £100.97. So, Eversure should pay Mr M £40.98. I understand Mr M feels this would still leave him out of pocket because his 12-month policy was cancelled. He’s suggested he be refunded a further £54.99 for the eleven months he missed out on or at least the difference between the cost a single trip policy and the premium he paid. However, Mr M chose to take out a 12-month policy, and I’m not persuaded that he would have chosen to take out a single trip policy if Eversure had provided better information. We’ve asked Mr M if he can provide any evidence to show that he took out another policy to cover him up to the date the policy was due to end, but he hasn’t done so. So, I haven’t been able to consider any further financial loss here. Having considered the information available to me, I think a payment of £40.98 from Eversure would place Mr M broadly in the position he would have been if Eversure had provided clearer information. So, while I appreciate my answer will be disappointing for both parties, I’m satisfied I’ve reached a fair outcome under the circumstances. Putting things right Eversure should pay Mr M £40.98.

-- 2 of 3 --

My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained, I uphold Mr M’s complaint and direct Eversure Limited to put things right by doing as I’ve said above. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr M to accept or reject my decision before 13 May 2026. Anne Muscroft Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --