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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs I complained that Admiral unfairly settled her motor insurance claim on a 50/50 split liability basis following a July 2023 traffic accident, when she maintained she was not liable. Admiral initially pursued the claim as non-fault but changed its position after the third-party insurer provided contradictory testimony and offered a split settlement. The ombudsman found that Admiral acted fairly because both parties disputed the incident circumstances, no independent evidence (such as CCTV footage) was available to resolve the dispute, and passenger witness evidence alone was insufficient to defend the claim in court. The ombudsman determined that Admiral reasonably concluded it lacked sufficient evidence to pursue a non-fault position and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman determined that Admiral acted fairly in settling the claim on a 50/50 split liability basis because: (1) both parties provided contradictory accounts of the incident; (2) no independent evidence (such as CCTV or dash-cam footage) was available to definitively establish liability; (3) passenger witness evidence is generally treated with caution by courts and insurers due to the witness's close connection to the driver; (4) Admiral would have needed clear evidence to defend the claim in court; and (5) in the absence of such evidence, it was reasonable for Admiral to conclude there was insufficient evidence to defend the claim. The ombudsman also clarified that 'fault' terminology reflects Admiral's inability to recover costs in full from another party, not a determination of actual fault.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website