Not upheld: claim settlement and liability determination complaint against Aviva

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M, as director of company E, complained about Aviva's handling of a motor insurance claim following a motorway slip road accident. Aviva settled the claim on a 50/50 split liability basis, but Mr M believed it should have been settled as non-fault since the third-party driver merged unsafely into his lane. The ombudsman examined the dashcam footage, damage photographs, and policy terms, finding that while the third-party was at fault for the unsafe merge, the evidence suggested Mr M's vehicle was moving and both parties bore responsibility. The ombudsman concluded Aviva's 50/50 settlement was fair and reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman noted that the FOS does not decide fault but assesses whether the insurer acted fairly and reasonably. While the third-party driver had a responsibility to ensure the lane was clear before merging, this alone does not establish that Mr M would not be considered partly responsible. The damage location (front nearside bumper) suggests Mr M's vehicle was moving forward, contradicting his claim of being stationary. The incomplete dashcam footage leaves doubt about which vehicle went into which. All road users have a general responsibility to avoid accidents. Given this evidence, a court would likely find Mr M at least partially responsible, making the 50/50 settlement reasonable.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website