Partially upheld: mis-selling, suitability of insurance policy, poor communication and delays in claim handling complaint against MARSH LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

R, through its director Mr S, complained that Marsh Limited recommended an unsuitable business protection insurance policy. Following a data breach claim in May 2024, the insurer declined to cover some aspects, and Mr S argued the policy was worthless and unsuitable. The key issue was a change to the Cyber Crime cover at the 2024 renewal that removed employee dishonesty cover. The ombudsman found Marsh properly highlighted this change in the renewal report, Mr S reviewed the documents carefully and even later acknowledged the change was specifically highlighted, and he did not challenge it. The policy was suitable for R's assessed needs. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint only regarding poor communication and delays in correspondence, awarding £150 compensation, and rejected claims that the policy was mis-sold or unsuitable.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Marsh acted as R's agent and provided advice in line with relevant rules and guidance. The policy was suitable for R's assessed needs covering property, public liability, employers' liability and other risks. The change to employee dishonesty cover at the 2024 renewal was specifically highlighted to Mr S in the renewal report, he reviewed the documents carefully, and he himself later acknowledged this change was specifically highlighted. Mr S did not challenge it or ask Marsh to find alternative cover. While Marsh was aware of Mr S's dyslexia, there was no evidence he requested specific communication adjustments before August 2025. The fact that some aspects of the claim were not covered does not mean the policy was unsuitable or mis-sold, as all insurance is subject to policy terms and conditions. Marsh's role was limited regarding claim handling - the insurer was responsible for claim decisions. However, there were occasions where correspondence wasn't replied to promptly, causing inconvenience.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website