Not upheld: Motor insurance, total loss valuation complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr H's car was stolen in August 2025, five months after purchase. Admiral initially offered market value (£62,888.50) but then correctly applied the policy's new vehicle replacement terms, offering either a replacement car or settlement at invoice price (£67,775). Mr H rejected the replacement due to long lead times and accepted the cash settlement but remained dissatisfied. The ombudsman found Admiral's settlement was fair and compliant with policy terms, supported by three trade guide valuations and market evidence showing equivalent vehicles were priced at or below the settlement figure. Admiral had already paid £100 compensation for service failures.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The policy clearly stated that for cars under 12 months old, Admiral would either provide a replacement vehicle or settle based on invoice price. Admiral correctly applied the invoice price settlement of £67,775 after Mr H rejected the replacement option due to lead times. Trade guide valuations and market evidence of equivalent vehicles all supported that Mr H could replace his car with the settlement amount. The ombudsman rejected arguments about retail market prices, road tax increases, and replacement costs as either outside policy scope or unsupported by evidence.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website