Not upheld: unfair renewal premium and alleged disadvantage of long-tenure customers on moratorium underwriting basis complaint against William Russell Europe SRL

Decision detail

Summary

Ms N complained that William Russell acted unfairly when renewing her international private medical insurance policy, which resulted in a substantial premium increase due to a residency change. She felt disadvantaged by remaining on a Moratorium underwriting basis while fully underwritten customers of the same age paid significantly less, and believed William Russell should have offered her a conversion or discussed this with her. The ombudsman found that William Russell, acting as an intermediary/administrator, fulfilled its regulatory obligations under ICOBS by providing clear information in good time and informing Ms N she could seek cheaper cover elsewhere. The ombudsman determined that premium rating and underwriting differences are the insurer's responsibility, not William Russell's, and that Ms N was not treated differently from other customers. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

William Russell, acting as an intermediary/administrator rather than the insurer, fulfilled its regulatory obligations under ICOBS by providing clear, not misleading information in good time. The renewal quote was sent approximately one month before renewal with all required information, and Ms N was informed she could seek cheaper cover elsewhere. The actual premium rating and differences between underwriting types are the insurer's remit, not William Russell's. The initial policy arrangement and any discussion about underwriting type would have been the responsibility of the broker Ms N originally approached, not William Russell. Ms N was not treated differently from other customers in similar circumstances.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website