Other Decision Reference 2023-0175

• Case Outcome: Partially upheld
• Subject Matter: Other
• Reference: 2023-0175
• Date: 29 August 2023
• Finantial Sector: Insurance
• Conducts Complained Of: Premium rate increases ,Claim handling delays or issues, Delayed or inadequate communication, Maladministration, Misrepresentation (at point of sale or after)

Decision Ref:

2023-0175

Sector:

Insurance

Product / Service:

Other

Conduct(s) complained of:

Premium rate increases

Claim handling delays or issues

Delayed or inadequate communication

Maladministration

Misrepresentation (at point of sale or after)

Outcome:

Partially upheld

LEGALLY BINDING DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN

This complaint concerns a proposal for personal motor insurance by the Complainant, a

director of a company (Company A). He is dissatisfied that the Provider, a broker, included

details of the claims history of Company A’s fleet motor policy, when seeking quotes for

personal motor cover for the Complainant and his wife.

The Complainant’s Case

The Complainant submits that in March 2017, he and his wife were seeking motor insurance

cover. He says that the Provider had previously in 2013, utilised his no claims bonus (5 years

plus) when putting a fleet policy in place for Company A. The Complainant and his wife were

named drivers on that fleet motor insurance policy, between 2013 and 2017.

The Complainant submits letters from the Insurance Underwriters, dated 7th April 2017,

stating that, as the

“policy is on a fleet basis [they have] a very limited amount of information recorded

in respect of the persons who have use of vehicles under the policy.”

The Complainant says that the Insurance Underwriters further stated that they:

- 2 -

/Cont’d…

“have no record of [the Complainant and his wife] being involved in claims or losses

for the period 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2017.”

The Complainant contends that when he attempted to insure two vehicles, for personal use,

for himself and his wife, that:

“false information about [their] driving experience [was] provided to another

insurance broker [by the Provider] which significantly increased the premium” and

that it “broke [their business] and left two of [them] with no car insurances within 12

hours.”

The Provider’s Case

In its Final Response Letter dated 30th December 2019, the Provider states that because the

Complainants did not accept the quotation for cover that it sourced, the Complainant and

his wife “are not clients of [the Provider] in a personal capacity”.

The Provider says that when the Complainant approached the Provider for a personal quote,

that it “was based on the information that [the Complainant] provided to [the Provider]”.

The Provider contends that:

“as insurance brokers we are required to act in utmost good faith and declare any

material fact, which ultimately benefits our clients. [The Complainant] as a potential

client are also obliged to declare all material facts. Existence of a claims history with

[the company of which the Complainant is a director] was a material fact”.

The Provider supplied the following details regarding the sequence of events:

2013:

- 28th March 2013: A fleet policy was set up with Insurer X, for Company A, of which

the Complainant was a director. This included comprehensive cover.

- 11th April 2013: The Complainant’s and another person’s No Claims Bonus was each

assigned to the fleet policy.

- 1st May 2013: The Complainant’s wife’s No Claims Bonus was assigned to the fleet

policy.

2015:

- 9th March 2015: The Complainant advised the Provider of the theft of the car he was

driving (one of the cars insured by the fleet policy) on 7th March 2015, when he left

the car engine running and went inside to get luggage/coffee.

- 9th March 2015: A pedestrian sustained critical injuries when hit by a different

vehicle of Company A. No notification of this incident was received by the Provider.

Insurer X also says that it was not notified of the incident by the insured or by the

Provider but was notified of the incident by the Personal Injury Assessment Board.