Not upheld: Motor insurance, claim handling complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M complained about Admiral's handling of a third party claim after his car damaged a parked vehicle. Although Mr M admitted fault, he objected to Admiral settling the approximately £7,000 third party claim without providing detailed cost documentation beforehand, and to Admiral subsequently pursuing him for recovery. Mr M also objected to the fault claim being recorded on his insurance database, which increased his future premiums. The ombudsman found that while Admiral had communication failures, they were entitled to rely on the third party engineer's report and supporting documentation to settle the claim reasonably, and that providing more detail to Mr M beforehand would not have changed the outcome. The complaint was not upheld, though the ombudsman found Admiral's £300 compensation offer for communication delays to be adequate.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while Admiral had communication failures in not providing detailed cost documentation before settling, these failures did not make it unfair for Admiral to recover the costs. Admiral was entitled to rely on the third party engineer's report and supporting documentation to assess the reasonableness of costs. The ombudsman noted that even if Admiral had provided more detail beforehand, it would not have changed the settlement outcome given the consistent and justified evidence supporting the costs. The ombudsman also found it was not unfair to record the claim as a fault claim, as Mr M admitted fault and insurers are entitled to consider previous fault claims when assessing risk.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website