Upheld: Investment mis-selling complaint against MARSH LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L purchased a commercial vehicle insurance policy through broker Marsh for a mini fleet including a livestock container. When the fleet was stolen in September 2024, the insurer A declined the claim for the livestock container despite Mr L having made clear to Marsh at inception that he wanted it covered. Marsh upheld Mr L's complaint and offered £300 compensation, but Mr L rejected this and referred to FOS, arguing the compensation was inadequate given the stress caused by the claim decline. The ombudsman upheld the complaint but found the £300 offer fair, as while Marsh failed to properly list the container on the policy schedule despite knowing of Mr L's intentions, the insurer's unfair claim decline was A's responsibility (already found unfair by FOS separately) and not Marsh's. The £300 appropriately compensates Mr L for Marsh's broker failings in documentation and communication.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Marsh's failure to specifically list the livestock container on the policy schedule, despite being aware of Mr L's intention to have it covered, created confusion about what was insured. While the ombudsman could not hold Marsh responsible for insurer A's decision to decline the claim (as that was A's responsibility and already found unfair by FOS), Marsh's poor documentation and failure to properly clarify coverage during multiple renewal opportunities caused Mr L concern, frustration and required him to spend time and effort challenging the issue. The £300 compensation fairly recognises Marsh's failings while appropriately distinguishing between Marsh's broker responsibilities and the insurer's claim handling responsibilities.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website