Partially upheld: irresponsible valuation methodology on total loss claim settlement complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B and Miss W complained about the market value Admiral paid following a total loss claim on Miss W's car insurance policy in October 2025. Admiral settled at £7,087, calculated as the average of three of four main motor trade guides, and relied on a single advert example at £6,995 to justify not paying the highest guide valuation of £7,217. The ombudsman found Admiral's methodology was not in line with FOS approach, as the single advert was not persuasive evidence and the car was not unusual. The ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, requiring Admiral to pay an additional £184 plus 8% simple interest from the date of interim settlement, but rejected Mr B's request for additional compensation for distress and inconvenience, finding the interest remedy fair. The excess deduction was upheld as correct and in line with policy terms.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Admiral's approach of paying the average of three guides rather than considering all four main guides was not in line with FOS approach to valuation complaints. The single advert example at £6,995 was not persuasive evidence to justify paying below the highest guide, particularly as the car was not unusual and wide advert availability existed. The later-provided adverts were less persuasive as they were submitted three months after loss. The difference of £184 (2.5%) was material enough to show Admiral had not paid very close to the highest guide. Mr B's suggested valuation was rejected as his advert examples were not comparable (lower mileage or newer vehicles). The excess deduction was correct and in line with policy terms. Interest on the shortfall was appropriate remedy for loss of funds.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website