Accelerant Insurance Europe SA/NV UK Branch · DRN-6203122

The complaint J complains about Accelerant Insurance Europe SA/NV UK Branch’s decision to decline cover for a tractor, on a claim made under a farm and estate insurance policy. J is a partnership and it has been represented on the complaint. For simplicity, all references to J, where appropriate, include the individuals forming the partnership, and the representative. Accelerant has also been represented by its agents on the claim. Similarly, all references to Accelerant include its agents. What happened J had a farm and estate insurance policy with Accelerant, that renewed in July 2022. This included cover for agricultural contents. In February 2023, a fire in J’s agricultural storage building damaged property and contents, including a tractor, an all-terrain utility vehicle (Gator) and a forklift truck (forklift). Accelerant ultimately agreed to provide cover for the forklift, but declined cover for the tractor and Gator. It said cover excluded motor vehicles, unless they were stated on the policy schedule. J complained in March 2025 about Accelerant’s decision to decline cover for the two items. In particular, J said the tractor didn’t meet the definition of items excluded under the terms. Accelerant issued a complaint response in April 2025. It said J didn’t ask it to cover the tractor or Gator under the policy. So they were excluded under the terms. J referred its complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It accepted the Gator was excluded under the policy terms, but said Accelerant should cover the tractor. The Investigator recommended the complaint be upheld. They said the tractor was effectively listed within the policy schedule, and was generally considered agricultural machinery. And in this case, it hadn’t been registered for road use. So overall, they said it wasn’t fair for Accelerant to decline cover for it. So they recommended it pay the claim for the tractor, subject to the remaining policy terms, and pay J £200 compensation. Accelerant didn’t agree. It said the policy terms exclude power driven vehicles, and this applied to the tractor. Because the complaint couldn’t be resolved, it’s 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. Under this decision, I’ve focused mainly on Accelerant’s decision to decline cover for the tractor under the claim. I understand J accepts the Gator wouldn’t be covered. For completeness, I’ve reviewed the information and I’m in agreement it was fair for Accelerant

-- 1 of 3 --

to decline cover for the Gator. Accelerant considered the claim for the tractor under section 4 of the policy, namely the Agricultural Contents cover. I’ve reviewed the policy’s Insurance Product Information Document (IPID). This provides a short summary of the most important and relevant information about the policy. In this case, it excludes cover under Section 4, for: “Damage to your motor vehicles or any trailers or motor vehicle attachments unless specifically stated on your schedule” The main policy terms also say cover is excluded for motor vehicles, unless they are stated on the schedule. I think a tractor can fairly be considered an agricultural motor vehicle. With the above in mind, I think a key point for me to consider is whether the tractor was stated on J’s schedule. Accelerant accepted the forklift was stated on the policy, which at renewal in July 2022, had a sum insured of £2,500. The forklift wasn’t specifically named, but instead, included under the broader term of “Machinery Plant & Implements & Hand Tools”. In addition to the above, under a further and separate heading (the second heading) of “Machinery Plant & Implements & Hand Tools”, was a separate sum insured of £35,000. I consider, similarly to a forklift, that a tractor can fairly and reasonably be defined as plant and machinery, in the context of a farm insurance policy. I consider it also meets the policy definition of “machinery”, which is “Agricultural implements, plant and machinery and all other agricultural property…”. In addition to the above, in defining what amounts to “machinery” the policy specifically excludes the following: “Power Driven vehicles, implements and accessories insured under a motor Policy or where there is any requirement to be insured under a motor Policy as per the Road Traffic Acts” I’ve considered the above to decide whether the tractor didn’t amount to “machinery” as defined under the terms. But I consider in order to be excluded, the tractor would need to be insured under a motor policy, or for such insurance to be required under the relevant law. J said the tractor wasn’t insured in this manner, and I’ve no reason to doubt this. And Accelerant hasn’t provided evidence to persuade me the tractor was required to be insured as outlined above. So overall, I’m satisfied the tractor did meet the definition of “machinery” under the policy terms. J said the tractor was included within the second heading and sum insured of £35,000, as outlined above. Given the significant sum insured value, that the forklift was stated without specifically being named, and that Accelerant hasn’t provided evidence to persuade me the tractor could have been otherwise specified or stated, I consider it more likely than not the tractor was included within the second heading and was therefore stated in the policy schedule. It follows that I consider the exclusion for motor vehicles outlined above, didn’t fairly apply in the circumstances of this complaint. So overall, I don’t consider Accelerant acted fairly in declining cover for the tractor, and I will direct it to pay J’s claim, subject to the remaining terms and conditions of the policy. In doing so, Accelerant shouldn’t rely on the policy exclusions for motor vehicles and machinery as outlined above. In unfairly declining cover for the tractor, I’m satisfied Accelerant caused J some distress, inconvenience and disappointment. And I agree with the Investigator that £200

-- 2 of 3 --

compensation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, so this is what I will direct Accelerant to pay. Accelerant has said upholding the complaint could set a precedent. But this decision is not a precedent and doesn’t function in this way. My overriding remit under the relevant rules, is to make an independent and impartial decision based on what I think is fair and reasonable to both parties, in the specific circumstances of this complaint. My final decision My final decision is that I uphold this complaint. Subject to my comments above, I require Accelerant Insurance Europe SA/NV UK Branch to: • Pay J’s claim for the tractor, subject to the remaining terms and conditions of the policy. • Pay J £200 compensation. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask J to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026. Monjur Alam Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --