Upheld: Account administration errors complaint against MARSH LIMITED trading as Marsh Commercial

Decision detail

Summary

S, a limited company, complained about Marsh Commercial's handling of its fleet motor insurance policy. Marsh failed to remove two vehicles when instructed in April 2022 and subsequently failed to include all seven vehicles S requested in the November 2022 renewal quote, resulting in two vehicles being uninsured. When discovered in February 2023 following a police stop, Marsh arranged for the vehicles to be added with effect from November 2022, but an additional premium of approximately £15,447 was charged. S claimed Marsh had promised to pay this premium and sought compensation for the significant risk of uninsured vehicles. The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding Marsh's service failures but rejected the claim for premium reimbursement, finding S would have incurred the same cost if the error had not occurred, and awarded £550 compensation for inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Marsh breached FCA Principle 2 by failing to act with due skill, care and diligence in two respects: failing to remove two vehicles when instructed in April 2022, and failing to include all seven vehicles in the November 2022 renewal quote. However, the ombudsman found that the additional premium for the missing vehicles would have been payable regardless of Marsh's error, as S would likely have proceeded with the policy if all vehicles had been included from the outset. No reliable evidence supported S's claim that Marsh promised to pay the additional premium. The refund for the April removal was properly processed by the insurer, though Marsh could have communicated this more clearly. Compensation is awarded only for inconvenience caused, not for hypothetical consequences that did not materialise.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website