ASA Adjudication on Assurant Direct Ltd
Assurant Direct Ltd t/a
Protect Your Bubble
6-12 Victoria Street
10 October 2012
Number of complaints:
Space City Productions
TV ad, for mobile phone insurance, featured an animated mouse and a bubble. The voice-over stated, "Just how much does your mobile mean to you?" One of the scenes featured an animated Venus fly-trap pick-pocketing a phone from the mouse. The voice-over stated, "... maybe it gets stolen. You know the blind panic when you just can't find it? Your mobile could be insured against accidents, liquid damage, theft and loss, in UK [sic] and worldwide. Great value mobile phone insurance from Protectyourbubble.com." The ad also featured a list indicating features of the mobile phone insurance, "Accidental Damage ... Liquid Damage ... Theft ... Loss". Each feature was accompanied with a green tick. On-screen text stated "Terms and conditions apply".
The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because they believed theft by pick-pocketing was not covered by the advertiser.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
Assurant Direct Ltd said that their policy covered theft and this included theft from a person if they had been pick-pocketed. They pointed out that their policy terms and conditions stated "If your gadget is stolen we will replace it". The advertiser also supplied successful claims which they said were made by consumers who had been pick-pocketed.
Clearcast said that before they approved the ad, they reviewed the policy terms and conditions. They said that it was clear that pick-pocketing was covered under the general theft clauses. They said that although there were exclusions, pick-pocketing was not one of them. Clearcast said that on this basis the ad did not mislead.
The ASA noted the terms and conditions which clearly pointed out that if a gadget was stolen, the advertiser would replace it and that pick-pocketing was not included in the exclusions. We also acknowledged the examples of successful pick-pocketing claims. Because of the information supplied by the advertiser, we concluded the ad was not misleading.
We investigated the ad under BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.
No further action necessary.