Not upheld: policy avoidance and claim denial for misrepresentation (fronting) complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G (policyholder) complained about Admiral Insurance avoiding his car insurance policy and declining a theft claim after they determined he made a misrepresentation regarding the main driver. Admiral's investigation revealed that while PH was listed as the main driver and registered keeper, his son ND (named driver) actually purchased the vehicle, paid all associated costs including premiums, and was the primary user—a practice known as fronting used to obtain cheaper insurance. The Ombudsman found Admiral acted fairly and reasonably in determining the misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, as a reasonable consumer would have known ND should have been declared as the main driver. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman found that Admiral's evidence from contemporaneous interviews conducted by independent experts held more weight than PH's subsequent assertions. The totality of circumstances—including that ND purchased the vehicle, paid all associated costs, the vehicle was kept at ND's address, ND was the last user, and the vehicle was stolen from ND's home—demonstrated that ND was the main driver. A reasonable consumer would have known ND should have been listed as the main driver. The misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless because PH would have known this when adjusting the policy. This circumstance is key to premium calculation, and Admiral would have offered different terms if ND had been declared as main driver.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website