Published decisions
869
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
Zurich Insurance PLC complaint analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving Zurich Insurance PLC, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
869 published decisions involving Zurich Insurance PLC, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
869
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
30.3%
263 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 30 Jan 2026
Upheld rate
30.3%
263 upheld decisions
Leading product
Insurance (excluding PPI)
474 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
142 tagged decisions
Zurich Insurance PLC at a glance
Zurich Insurance PLC appears in 869 published decisions in this corpus. 30.3% 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 (excluding PPI) is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 474 decisions and an upheld rate of 25.7%.
- Latest active year in the published data: 2026 (2 decisions)
- Most common complaint theme: Delay In Claim Handling
- Most common precedent signal: Disp
Volume and outcome trajectory
Zurich Insurance PLC'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, Zurich Insurance PLC appeared in 2 published decisions with an upheld rate of 50.0%.
- 2026: 2 decisions, 50.0% upheld
- 2025: 41 decisions, 41.5% upheld
- 2024: 85 decisions, 48.2% upheld
- 2023: 91 decisions, 41.8% upheld
- 2022: 76 decisions, 30.3% upheld
Themes, products, and precedent signals
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to Zurich Insurance PLC in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Disp, Icobs, Insurance Act 2015 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.
- Insurance (excluding PPI): 474 decisions
- Second complaint theme: Policy Wording Ambiguity
- Second precedent signal: Icobs
Representative cases
Recent published decisions in this slice
5 examples shown
DRN-611931030 Jan 2026Upheld
Zurich Insurance PLC · Insurance
It’s my final decision that I uphold this complaint in part and direct Zurich Insurance PLC to: • Reconsider the claim for valuables, in line with the remaining terms, without applying the single item limit • Pay Mr G a total of £500 compensation (including the £300 already offered) Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr G to accept or reject my decision before 27 February 2026....
View source decisionDRN-606017629 Jan 2026Not upheld
Zurich Insurance PLC · Insurance
Zurich Insurance PLC has already made an offer to settle the complaint, and I think this offer is fair in all the circumstances. So my decision is that Zurich Insurance PLC should pay Mr W the £500 compensation offered in its final response letter of 22 August 2025.
View source decisionDRN-576047118 Dec 2025Upheld
Zurich Insurance PLC · Insurance
DRN-5760471 The complaint Mr B and Mrs B have complained about the repairs carried out by Zurich Insurance PLC (Zurich) under their home insurance policy. What happened Mr B and Mrs B made a claim under their policy. Zurich carried out repairs, including to the roof. A while later, the... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN-599173111 Dec 2025Upheld
Zurich Insurance PLC · Insurance
No summary extracted for this decision.
View source decisionDRN-597243227 Nov 2025Not upheld
Zurich Insurance PLC · Insurance
DRN-5972432 The complaint Mr G is unhappy with how his claim was handled by Zurich Insurance PLC (“Zurich”) under his home insurance policy and he’s not happy the claim was declined. What happened Mr G was a leaseholder of a council-managed property. And this property was covered by a b... (2 pages)
View source decision