07.08.2013 Views

Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach ... - Law Commission

Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach ... - Law Commission

Misrepresentation, Non-Disclosure and Breach ... - Law Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Section 4 Baseline analysis of insurance markets <strong>and</strong> the extent of non-disclosure<br />

Table 10: <strong>Non</strong> disclosure complaints to the Financial Ombudsman by<br />

market size (2005)<br />

Insurance Product Market Size (£m) <strong>Non</strong> <strong>Disclosure</strong><br />

Complaints - 2005<br />

FOS <strong>Non</strong>disclosure<br />

complaints per £m<br />

Buildings Insurance £3,133 47 0.015<br />

Contents Insurance £3,095 88 0.028<br />

Medical Insurance £2,063 15 0.007<br />

Vehicle Insurance £9,543 181 0.019<br />

Critical Illness £125 390 3.115<br />

The information in the Table indicates that for the four major general<br />

insurance markets (buildings, contents, vehicle <strong>and</strong> private medical<br />

insurance), the incidence of a complaint being brought to the FOS relating to<br />

non-disclosure is between 0.007 <strong>and</strong> 0.028 per million pounds of household<br />

expenditure. In the case of critical illness insurance, the likelihood of bringing<br />

a complaint is more than 100 times greater at just over 3 per million pounds<br />

of household expenditure.<br />

4.3.1 Ombudsman decisions in relation to<br />

misrepresentation <strong>and</strong> non-disclosure in critical illness<br />

Information from the Financial Ombudsman Service indicates that of all cases<br />

brought to their attention <strong>and</strong> resolved through an adjudicator, 12.5% of<br />

judgments found that the firm had not treated the customer’s complaint<br />

fairly; in 10% of cases, the firm had made an offer to the customer but the<br />

adjudicator negotiated an improved settlement <strong>and</strong> in 6% of cases, the<br />

adjudicator found that the firm had generally treated the customer’s<br />

complaint fairly – but the firm still agreed a goodwill payment.<br />

Of the cases brought to their attention <strong>and</strong> resolved through an ombudsman,<br />

36% of judgments found that the firm had not treated the customer’s<br />

complaint fairly; in 5% of cases, the firm had made an offer to the customer<br />

but the adjudicator negotiated an improved settlement <strong>and</strong> in 2% of cases, the<br />

adjudicator found that the firm had generally treated the customer’s<br />

complaint fairly – but the firm still agreed a goodwill payment.<br />

The <strong>Law</strong> <strong>Commission</strong> looked at a sample of 93 final ombudsman decisions in<br />

which a critical illness claim had been declined for non-disclosure/<br />

misrepresentation. The results are shown overleaf:<br />

London Economics<br />

June 2007 25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!