Not upheld: claims handling and settlement decision complaint against Eridge Underwriting Agency Ltd

Decision detail

Summary

Mr P complained about how Eridge handled a motor insurance claim following a roundabout incident. Although Mr P initially reported the incident for notification only, the other driver made a claim which Eridge settled as fault after Mr P declined to provide detailed information via email. Mr P discovered the fault claim at renewal and sought removal of the fault from his record and compensation for increased premiums. The ombudsman found that Eridge reasonably settled the claim and that the best possible outcome would have been 50/50 split liability regardless, meaning a fault would have been recorded either way. The ombudsman upheld Eridge's £200 compensation for poor communication but did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Eridge was entitled under the policy terms to settle the claim as it saw fit. Although Eridge could have done more to obtain Mr P's detailed version of events, the ombudsman was satisfied that Eridge reasonably decided the best possible outcome would be 50/50 split liability, which would have resulted in a fault being recorded against Mr P regardless. This assessment was based on common industry practice of using experience from similar cases. Therefore, the failure to obtain Mr P's full account would not have changed the outcome. The £200 compensation for poor communication was deemed fair and reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website