Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE

Decision detail

Summary

L, a limited company, complained about Liberty Mutual's handling of a covenant indemnity insurance claim arising from forfeiture proceedings brought by a freeholder. The court granted L relief from forfeiture but ordered it to pay damages and restore the property to its original condition. Liberty Mutual allowed L's existing solicitors to continue handling the case rather than taking over conduct itself, and later settled the loss in value claim for £114,000 based on expert valuation evidence. L complained about the length of time the claim took and the settlement amount. The ombudsman found that Liberty Mutual acted reasonably within its contractual rights, that the settlement was fair based on expert evidence and was accepted by L's solicitors, and that Liberty Mutual's actions did not cause delays in the proceedings.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Liberty Mutual acted within its contractual rights by allowing L's existing solicitors to continue handling the case rather than taking over conduct itself. The policy terms explicitly permitted this approach. Liberty Mutual reasonably sought expert valuation evidence before settling the loss of value claim and based its offer on that evidence. The settlement of £114,000 was clearly offered as full and final settlement and was accepted by L's solicitors acting on L's behalf. There was no evidence that Liberty Mutual's actions delayed the court proceedings; the delay was due to the other party's unwillingness to settle and the normal course of litigation. L, as a party to the proceedings, bore responsibility for the time and effort involved, not Liberty Mutual.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website