Not upheld: Motor insurance, total loss valuation complaint against esure Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W claimed esure wrongly held her liable for a motor accident and wrongly categorised her written-off car as category S. She argued the other driver was speeding and at fault, but esure accepted liability due to lack of independent evidence supporting her version. An engineer assessed the vehicle as category S based on images showing structural damage to the inner rear quarter panel. The ombudsman found esure acted reasonably in both decisions, as Miss W bore the onus to ensure her lane change was safe and failed to provide independent engineering evidence to dispute the structural damage assessment.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that esure acted reasonably in accepting liability because Miss W had the onus to ensure her manoeuvre was safe, the collision was almost immediate after she moved into the occupied lane, and there was no independent evidence of the other driver speeding or failing to exercise due care. Regarding the category S classification, the ombudsman found that qualified engineers routinely conduct desktop reviews based on images and accident details, and esure was entitled to rely on the engineer's expert opinion. Miss W would have needed to provide evidence from another engineer to dispute the structural damage assessment, which she did not do.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website