Not upheld: claim handling delays and procedural fairness complaint against Accelerant Insurance Europe SA/NV UK Branch

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L complained to the FOS about Accelerant's handling of his commercial property insurance claim following a fire in June 2023. Accelerant issued three final responses and eventually gave notice to avoid the policy, citing concerns about fair presentation of risk and breach of condition precedents. The ombudsman found that most of Mr L's complaints were brought outside the six-month time limit and could not be considered. Regarding the handling up to 12 September 2025, the ombudsman found Accelerant's conduct reasonable, including its investigation, request for interviews, and raising of concerns about the risk presentation. The complaint was not upheld, and the ombudsman noted that Mr L would need to raise a new complaint if he wished to challenge the actual decision to avoid the policy.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Dispute Resolution Rules (DISP 2.8.2) regarding time limits for bringing complaints. Mr L brought the complaint to the FOS more than six months after Accelerant's first two final responses (5 October 2023 and 8 January 2024), with no exceptional circumstances identified and no consent from Accelerant. Regarding the handling of the claim up to 12 September 2025, the ombudsman found that Accelerant was entitled to conduct investigations and request interviews as a matter of course. The ombudsman found it reasonable for Accelerant to raise concerns about fair presentation of risk under the Insurance Act 2015 and breach of condition precedents, and to invite Mr L's solicitors to respond. While there were delays between October 2024 and September 2025, both sets of solicitors shared responsibility and such delays are not unusual when legal representatives are involved. Crucially, Accelerant had not actually avoided the policy or made a final decision on indemnity by 12 September 2025, so the ombudsman could not consider the avoidance decision itself.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website