Not upheld: claim decline decision - lack of reasonable prospects of success complaint against ARAG Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that ARAG unfairly declined his professional negligence claim against a barrister. ARAG had obtained counsel's opinion which concluded the claim lacked reasonable prospects of success because, although the barrister had breached duties, this had not caused Mr S to suffer loss. Mr S disputed the opinion and raised arguments about court jurisdiction (County Court vs High Court), but the panel solicitors concluded these did not affect the prospects assessment. The ombudsman found ARAG was entitled to rely on the detailed counsel's opinion from a suitably qualified lawyer and was not required to seek further advice when Mr S made unsupported arguments about jurisdiction. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that ARAG was entitled to rely on the detailed and properly reasoned counsel's opinion from a suitably qualified lawyer with relevant experience in professional negligence and costs litigation. Although ARAG used incorrect policy terms, this made no difference to the outcome as the relevant provisions were identical. While Mr S raised arguments about court jurisdiction after the opinion was received, the panel solicitors had already addressed these and explained they did not impact the key issue of whether breaches caused loss. The ombudsman concluded that without a supportive legal opinion from a qualified lawyer, ARAG was not required to take further action in response to Mr S's arguments.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website