Not upheld: claims settlement decision and investigation adequacy complaint against Tradex Insurance Company PLC

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs I, a named driver on a car insurance policy with Tradex, complained about Tradex's decision to settle her claim on a 50/50 shared liability basis following a collision with a third party. Mrs I disputed liability, claiming she was not at fault, and argued that Tradex had not properly investigated the incident or considered the information she provided, including her account of events and a passenger statement. Tradex maintained that without independent evidence or an independent witness, it could not prove the third party was 100% responsible and that a court would likely order shared liability. The ombudsman found that Tradex had properly investigated the claim, fairly considered all available information, and reasonably settled on a shared liability basis given the absence of independent evidence and conflicting accounts from both parties. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the policy term allowing Tradex to settle claims must be exercised fairly and reasonably, Tradex had done so in this case. Although Mrs I provided detailed information about her direction of travel and her passenger's statement, the passenger was not independent and therefore carried limited evidential weight. Critically, the damage to the vehicles evidenced a collision but did not prove which party initiated the impact. With no independent evidence and conflicting accounts from both parties, the ombudsman agreed with Tradex's assessment that a court would likely order shared liability. Tradex's decision to settle on a 50/50 basis rather than incur the costs and risks of court proceedings was reasonable and properly investigated.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website