DRN-6020958

The complaint Mr P complains about how Assurant General Insurance Limited settled his two claims under his mobile phone insurance. What happened Mr P has mobile phone insurance through his building society account. In July 2025 he claimed for accidental damage to his daughter’s iPhone 11 Pro Max and his son’s iPhone 13 Pro Max. Assurant accepted both claims, repaired the phones and in mid-July 2025 returned them under warranty. In mid-September 2025 Mr P sent the phones to Assurant saying the iPhone 11 Pro Max didn’t have the magnet in the back of the phone and the iPhone 13 Pro Max’s battery was faulty. Assurant said the phones had been returned with new external damage, the iPhone 11 Pro Max with a smashed back, and the iPhone 13 Pro Max with a crack to the front and back of the phone. So the warranty was void and Mr P would need to make new claims and pay the excesses for it to repair the damage. Mr P complained to Assurant that its initial repairs to the phones had been faulty and/or it had used inferior parts in the repairs. Assurant disagreed, it said after repairs the phones were quality checked before being returned to Mr P and under the policy terms it didn’t have to use branded parts in the repair. Mr P asked Assurant to return the phones and he paid for a shop to repair them. He complained to us. In summary he said: • The replacement glass Assurant used to repair the iPhone 13 Pro Max in July 2025 was fragile so it had broken easily when his son dropped it. The shop repairer told him water had got behind the glass. So the phone wasn’t properly waterproof due to the fragile glass Assurant put on the phone and the water damage caused the phone to not work properly. • The magnet was taken out of his daughter’s iPhone 11 Pro Max so it didn’t stick onto the charger anymore which shows the back casing Assurant used for the repair was of poor quality. • He wants Assurant to pay the repair costs he paid. Our Investigator said there was no evidence to support that Assurant’s repairs were unreasonable. Also, Assurant had acted fairly in not repairing the phones under warranty. Mr P disagrees and wants an Ombudsman’s decision. He added that as the glass in the iPhone 13 Pro Max broke easily it couldn’t have been equivalent or similar to the phone manufacturer’s branded glass and he’d like to know where Assurant sourced the glass. Also, that phone was supposed to be waterproof even if water entered it. Mr P sent us reviews from other consumers which he said showed Assurant had a ‘bad rating’. Before I made my decision I asked Assurant for its quality check records for the phones and for its comments on Mr P’s point about the iPhone 13 Pro Max no longer being waterproof.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. When this Service decides what’s a fair and reasonable outcome to a complaint we consider the circumstances of the individual complaint. So I haven’t considered the consumer reviews about Assurant that Mr P sent us as those reviews aren’t about whether Assurant acted fairly and reasonably in this complaint. The relevant regulator’s rules say that insurers must handle claims promptly and fairly and they mustn’t turn down (or settle) claims unreasonably. When Assurant returned the repaired phones to Mr P in July 2025 it sent him information which said the repairs came with a six month warranty to cover mechanical or electrical failures and to: ‘Please note that the warranty does not cover any defect which is found to be caused by damage or alterations/repair work carried out by someone else other than our approved repairers. If this is found to be the case then you will need to log a new insurance claim’. I’ve considered the photos Assurant took of the phones after it repaired them in July 2025 and when it received the phones in September 2025. The July photos show no cosmetic damage to the phones, the September photos show the damage Assurant described – the iPhone 11 Pro Max had a smashed back and the iPhone 13 Pro Max had a crack to the front and back of the phone. So I’m satisfied Assurant reasonably said the damage it saw in September 2025 was caused after the phones were returned to Mr P in July 2025. Mr P says the damage occurred because of the poor quality of Assurant’s repair and/or replacement parts. The policy says: ‘Repairs will be made using readily available parts, or we may provide refurbished products. These may contain parts that are of similar or equivalent specification, and these may include unbranded parts’. The policy is clear Assurant can use unbranded parts for repair so Assurant acted reasonably in not using the phone manufacturer’s branded parts for the repairs. Mr P’s view is the replacement glass on the iPhone 13 Pro Max can’t have been of similar or equivalent specification to the original glass for it to break so easily. Assurant’s response is that he hasn’t provided any independent expert technical evidence that says the replacement glass used was fragile, substandard or defective and at the time of its repair the phone passed all post repair quality checks. I’ve not seen any independent expert evidence to support Mr P’s suggestion that the glass wasn’t of ‘similar or equivalent specification’ to branded glass and Assurant has provided documentary evidence that the phone passed its post repair quality checks. So on the evidence I have I’m satisfied Assurant reasonably repaired the iPhone 13 Pro Max. Mr P asked where Assurant gets the unbranded glass it uses to repair phones but I don’t think Assurant has to give him that information which is commercially sensitive. Mr P says the repairer at the shop he went to for the phones’ repair told him that water got behind the screen of the iPhone 13 Pro Max which made the phone switch on and off every

-- 2 of 3 --

few minutes. Mr P says as water got behind the front screen of that phone Assurant didn’t put on the screen properly when repairing. But the photo Assurant provided shows the phone’s front screen, as well as the back screen, was damaged when it received the phone in September 2025. So I can’t reasonably conclude that any water which entered the iPhone 13 Pro Max was due to the screen not being sealed properly by Assurant. I think it’s just as, or even more, likely that any water entered because of the cracks on the phone that weren’t caused by Assurant. As I’ve explained above, I’ve seen no evidence to support that the glass cracked because it wasn’t of ‘similar or equivalent specification’ to branded glass. In response to Mr P’s comments that the iPhone 13 Pro Max is supposed to be waterproof, so shouldn’t have failed even if water entered through damaged glass, Assurant has referred me to the phone manufacturer’s specifications. Those specifications say the phone is ‘splash, water, and dust resistant’ which are ‘not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear’. So even if the phone was damaged following exposure to water I can’t reasonably say, even on the balance of probabilities, that means Assurant’s repair was defective. Overall I’ve seen no evidence to support Mr P’s suggestion that Assurant didn’t reasonably repair the iPhone 13 Pro Max. Mr P said the magnet was taken out of his daughter’s iPhone 11 Pro Max which shows the back casing Assurant used was poor quality. But our Investigator told Mr P that make and model doesn’t have a back magnet as the technology was introduced as a new feature for a later model and Mr P hasn’t disagreed. So I’ve seen no evidence to support Mr P’s suggestion that Assurant didn’t reasonably repair the iPhone 11 Pro Max. Overall I’m satisfied Assurant acted fairly and reasonably in not repairing either phone under the warranty. Assurant doesn’t need to pay Mr P the cost he paid to have the phones repaired. My final decision I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr P to accept or reject my decision before 22 May 2026. Nicola Sisk Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --