Not upheld: claim settlement decision and liability determination complaint against First Central Underwriting Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs P complained that First Central Underwriting Limited unfairly settled her car insurance claim on a 50/50 shared liability basis following a collision with a third party vehicle. Mrs P maintained she was not at fault and believed the evidence she provided demonstrated this. First Central and the Third Party Insurer could not agree on liability, with both parties disputing the other's account of events. The ombudsman found that without independent evidence such as CCTV or witness statements, the matter came down to one party's word against the other, and both accounts were plausible. The ombudsman concluded that First Central acted reasonably and fairly in settling the claim on a 50/50 basis rather than pursuing costly court proceedings without sufficient evidence to prove liability, and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman noted that while FOS does not decide liability (that is the role of courts), it can assess whether an insurer reached its decision reasonably and in line with policy terms. The ombudsman found that both accounts were plausible and without independent evidence, the matter came down to one party's word against the other. First Central was entitled under the policy to settle claims and would only pursue court action where evidence was strong enough to give good prospects of success. The ombudsman concluded First Central acted reasonably in settling on a 50/50 basis rather than incurring significant costs pursuing the matter to court.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website