Not upheld: claims handling - liability admission and investigation of third-party injury claim complaint against Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs H and Miss Q complained that their motor insurer, Advantage Insurance, unfairly admitted liability for a low-speed rear-end collision caused by Miss Q without first reviewing telematics data. They sought reversal of the liability admission, restoration of their no claims bonus, and recording as a non-fault claim. The third-party driver had claimed personal injury, which Mrs H and Miss Q disputed given the low speed impact. The ombudsman upheld Advantage's approach, distinguishing between liability (fault) and quantum (extent of injury and loss), finding it reasonable to admit liability based on Miss Q's position as the rear vehicle driver while separately investigating whether the third-party's injury claims were genuine.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman distinguished between liability (fault for the accident) and quantum (extent of loss and injury). While Miss Q was the rear vehicle driver and admitted the collision, this establishes liability but does not automatically establish that the collision caused injury. The ombudsman found it reasonable for Advantage to admit liability based on Miss Q's position as the rear vehicle driver, and separately reasonable for Advantage to investigate whether the third-party's injury and damage claims were genuine. The telematics data showing low speed impact is relevant to quantum and causation, not to the liability admission itself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website