Published decisions
41,974
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Product analysis
A public view of how Insurance (excluding PPI) performs in the published Financial Ombudsman decisions dataset, including volume, outcome mix, firm exposure, and recurring complaint themes.
Page summary
41,974 published FOS decisions in Insurance (excluding PPI), with upheld-rate context, firm exposure, complaint themes, advisory patterns, and representative cases.
Published decisions
41,974
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
35.1%
14,747 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 16 Sept 2021
Published decisions
41,974
Product-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
35.1%
14,747 upheld decisions
Leading firm
UK Insurance Limited
3,619 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
8,091 tagged decisions
41,974 published decisions in this corpus sit within Insurance (excluding PPI). 35.1% of those decisions were upheld, which makes this a useful public category page for spotting where complaint outcomes have tended to land.
UK Insurance Limited is the single biggest firm exposure inside Insurance (excluding PPI) in the published decision set. Delay In Claim Handling is the leading complaint theme in the same category.
Insurance (excluding PPI) has a multi-year decision trail in the corpus, which makes it possible to compare recent complaint pressure against earlier years rather than relying on a single snapshot.
In 2021, Insurance (excluding PPI) recorded 181 published decisions with an upheld rate of 53.0%.
delay in claim handling, policy wording ambiguity, non-disclosure or misrepresentation, and others are the strongest complaint-theme signals in Insurance (excluding PPI). For public analysis, those tags are the closest durable “type” layer available in the dataset.
The existing advisor model also points to recurring handling implications for Insurance (excluding PPI), including review disp precedent (appears in 0.5% of cases), review icobs precedent (appears in 0.5% of cases), and others.
Representative cases
5 examples shown
Mr B, Mr W, Mr C, Mrs W, Mrs B and Mr C complain that Amtrust Europe Limited (“Amtrust”) unfairly declined a claim made under a warranty. To keep things simple, I’ll refer to the complainants collectively as “Mr B“ throughout, unless specified. And any reference to Amtrust includes its age... (5 pages)
View source decisionMr F complains that he was mis-sold insurance by Sesame Limited. background Mr F was sold an income protection policy by Sesame. He said the policy was mis-sold because he was told it was compulsory to have alongside his mortgage back in 2001. He said the policy wasn’t needed because he al... (2 pages)
View source decisionMrs F complains that AXA Insurance UK Plc (AXA) is liable for various costs under a storm claim she made in 2011. This includes legal costs she incurred in connection with the works carried out after the storm and items in storage. She also complains about other issues and argues that AXA ... (21 pages)
View source decisionMr C has complained that Aviva Insurance Limited (‘Aviva’) unfairly declined his claim. background Mr C has a travel insurance policy through his bank account, underwritten by Aviva. Mr C had a trip booked to Japan from 22 December 2017 to 8 January 2018, via France. When Mr C got to Franc... (3 pages)
View source decisionJ, a limited company, is unhappy with how Ageas Insurance Limited handled its claim under its business insurance policy following damage at its rented premises. background H (a sole trader), who is a ‘third party’ in law for the purpose of this case, had buildings insurance with Ageas to ... (13 pages)
View source decision