Not upheld: claims administration and third-party service provider responsibility complaint against Fish Administration Limited trading as Fish Insurance

Decision detail

Summary

T, a trust, complained that Fish Insurance should contribute to an Employment Tribunal award against it, claiming it received poor advice from P, an HR and legal advisor appointed under T's legal expenses insurance policy sold by Fish. The ombudsman found that Fish's role was limited to brokering the care protect policy and had no involvement in the legal expenses insurance claim, the appointment of P, or the Employment Tribunal proceedings. As P was appointed under a separate legal expenses insurance policy by a different insurer, Fish bore no responsibility for P's advice or its consequences. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Fish's obligations as broker arose only from the sale and administration of the care protect insurance policy. Fish had no direct relationship with P, did not appoint P, and had no involvement in the legal expenses insurance claim or Employment Tribunal proceedings. The insurer of the legal expenses policy, not Fish, is responsible for claims under that policy. Fish cannot be held responsible for the actions or advice of third-party service providers appointed under separate policies.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website