Not upheld: claims handling and liability determination complaint against AXA Insurance UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

Ms W complained that AXA unfairly determined she was at fault for a car park collision and requested the claim be reclassified as non-fault with compensation for stress and medical expenses. AXA had settled the third party's claim after concluding Ms W, as the reversing party, bore greater duty of care and that the damage patterns and injury claims could not be successfully defended. The ombudsman found AXA's investigation was thorough and its liability decision reasonable, noting that Ms W's inconsistent accounts (initially describing reversing, later claiming she was stopped; initially denying injury, later reporting it) undermined her credibility and made defence difficult. The ombudsman upheld AXA's position that even a split liability approach would likely have resulted in some fault attaching to Ms W as the manoeuvring party, and did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found AXA acted fairly because: (1) the policy wording gives AXA the right to handle claims as it sees fit, provided actions are reasonable; (2) AXA properly investigated by reviewing the claim, considering damage patterns, and assessing the strength of the third party's injury claims; (3) as the reversing/manoeuvring party, Ms W had a greater duty of care; (4) inconsistencies in Ms W's account (initially reversing, later claiming she was stopped; initially no injury, later reporting injury) undermined her credibility as a witness and made it difficult for AXA to defend the claim; (5) even a split liability approach would likely have resulted in some fault attaching to Ms W given her role as the manoeuvring party.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website