Not upheld: liability decision and claim settlement complaint against Admiral Insurance (Gibraltar) Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss E complained about Admiral Insurance's decision to settle a third-party motor insurance claim on a 100% liability basis following a roundabout accident. Miss E maintained she was not at fault and that the third party collided with her when overtaking over hatched markings. Admiral assessed that Miss E had failed to give way to traffic already on the roundabout, supported by the broken white line markings at the junction exit. The ombudsman found Admiral's investigation was thorough and fair, consulting Miss E before finalising its decision, and that its liability assessment was reasonable based on the available evidence despite Miss E's alternative explanation based on vehicle damage patterns. The complaint was not upheld as the ombudsman found Admiral's settlement decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Admiral was entitled under the policy terms to conduct investigation, defence and settlement on the insured's behalf, provided it did so fairly and reasonably. Admiral conducted a thorough investigation reviewing the accident location, damage to vehicles, and both parties' accounts before finalising its decision. The ombudsman considered that Admiral's assessment that Miss E had a duty to give way to traffic already on the roundabout was fair and reasonable, supported by the broken white line markings at the junction. While Miss E provided an alternative explanation based on damage location, the ombudsman found this was not supported by sufficiently persuasive evidence to demonstrate Admiral's conclusion was unreasonable. The damage pattern was consistent with multiple scenarios and did not outweigh the broader liability considerations. Without independent evidence such as CCTV footage, the ombudsman found it reasonable for Admiral to assess that a court would likely place significant weight on the duty to give way, creating a significant litigation risk.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website