Published decisions
722
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Assurant General Insurance Limited, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Published decisions
722
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
41.5%
300 upheld decisions
Page summary
722 published decisions involving Assurant General Insurance Limited, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
722
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
41.5%
300 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 17 Mar 2026
How to use this page
The top-line cards show scale and outcome context. The ranked view and representative decisions show where the slice is concentrated and what the published decision set actually looks like.
Published decisions
722
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
41.5%
300 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance
411 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
73 tagged decisions
Assurant General Insurance Limited appears in 722 published decisions in this corpus. 41.5% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Insurance is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 411 decisions and an upheld rate of 43.5%.
Assurant General Insurance Limited's decision trail runs from 2013 to 2026. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, Assurant General Insurance Limited appeared in 8 published decisions with an upheld rate of 25.0%.
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Assurant General Insurance Limited in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Fsma, Icobs, and others are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
For the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionMy final decision is that the offer Assurant General Insurance Limited made is fair and reasonable, so it should now settle Miss J’s claim in line with the offer it made on 17 September 2025. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss J to accept or reject my decision before 14 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decisionI’ve decided not to uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mrs P to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decisionFor the reasons I’ve explained, I don’t uphold Mr A’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or reject my decision before 3 April 2026.
View source decision