Upheld: unfair settlement valuation on total loss motor insurance claim complaint against Acromas Insurance Company Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6151651 of 2026-04-07T00:00:00+00:00. unfair settlement valuation on total loss motor insurance claim complaint against Acromas Insurance Company Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6151651 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Acromas Insurance Company Limited |
| Product | motor insurance |
| Claim type | unfair settlement valuation on total loss motor insurance claim |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Acromas must increase the settlement offer to £4,250 less the policy excess and salvage cost (an increase of £1,356.67 from the original offer). Additionally, Acromas must pay 8% simple interest on the £1,356.67 increase from the date the initial settlement amount was paid to the date of final settlement. |
Summary
Mr C and Mrs C complained that Acromas unfairly settled a total loss claim on Mrs C's motor insurance policy, offering £2,893.33 when they believed the car was worth more. Acromas had obtained valuations from three guides ranging from £1,365 to £3,812 and offered the average. The investigator obtained valuations from the same guides but found a highest valuation of £4,250, which included a separate £400 valuation for additional extras that Acromas had not accounted for. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Acromas should have paid the highest valuation of £4,250 to ensure fair settlement, and ordered Acromas to increase the settlement by £1,356.67 plus 8% simple interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the principle that insurers should pay the highest of the valuation guides to ensure fair settlement, unless evidence supports a lower valuation. Acromas's approach of averaging the three guides was not justified, particularly as it failed to account for the additional extras valuation of £400 that appeared in one guide. The ombudsman found that the highest valuation of £4,250 was the appropriate benchmark, as it properly reflected the vehicle's specification including optional extras. The evidence provided by Mr C regarding similar cars and alternative valuations was not persuasive due to material differences in specifications and the vehicle not being insured as a classic car.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Acromas Insurance Company Limited, all decisions | 860 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website