Advantage Insurance Company Limited · DRN-6052891

The complaint Mr F complained about the way Advantage Insurance Company Limited handled a claim he made on his motor insurance policy. What happened Mr F was driving near a school in March 2025 when a child came out from in front of a bus and unfortunately Mr F collided with them. Advantage thought they wouldn’t be able to recover costs for the damage Mr R incurred, so thought they would need to mark the claim as ‘bonus disallowed’ – or as a ‘fault’ claim, as they’re often called. Advantage subsequently reviewed the police report and other evidence but ultimately decided to maintain the bonus disallowed claim as they still didn’t think they could recover their costs. Mr F complained to Advantage about their decision. He thought there was nothing he could have done to prevent the accident and said he exercised a duty of care where the pedestrian did not. And he felt a court should decide liability. When Mr F referred his complaint to this Service, an Investigator looked into what happened but didn’t uphold the complaint as she felt Advantage’s stance on liability was fair. Mr R disagreed. He felt Advantage made their liability decision quickly without having time to review the evidence. And he said he didn’t fall foul of the Highway Code. The complaint couldn’t be resolved so it has come to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As ours is an informal service, I’m not going to comment on every point or piece of evidence Mr F and Advantage sent us. Instead, I’ve focused on what I consider to be key or central to the complaint. But I’d like to reassure both that I have considered everything submitted. Firstly, I note Mr F has complained about not being covered under his legal expenses insurance. But Advantage doesn’t underwrite Mr F’s legal cover, so I’m not commenting on that here. I’ve considered whether Advantage’s liability decision was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It isn’t the role of this Service to decide liability – that’s a matter for the courts. We do, however, look to see that insurers have acted in a fair and reasonable way. The policy, like most motor insurance policies, says Advantage can take over and conduct the defence or settlement of any claim under the policy for their own benefit. And that this includes taking proceedings in Mr F’s name at their own expense. This means they can make a claim decision he disagrees with but must act reasonably when doing so. And it is Advantage’s choice to claim for costs from a third-party in court. Court proceedings can be expensive, so insurers will usually consider whether it’s likely they will recover costs from the other party involved before pursuing them through the courts.

-- 1 of 2 --

Advantage said they considered the evidence including a witness statement confirming the pedestrian ran out from in front of a bus, leaving Mr F no time to react. They said motorists have a duty of care to vulnerable road users, and the claim was classified as bonus disallowed because costs couldn’t be recovered. I’ve reviewed the evidence Advantage relied on to determine liability including Mr F’s testimony, the witness testimony, the police report, and layout and photographs of the area where the incident happened. Mr F thinks Advantage’s decision is unfair. He referred to sections of the Highway Code for pedestrians. These included a section about young children not being alone on the pavement or road, and a second section about teaching children to cross the road safely. He said there was a zebra crossing further along the road where the child should have crossed. And said he followed the section of the Highway Code about overtaking to the letter and thinks he shouldn’t be considered at fault for what happened. I’ve considered Mr F’s comments about how the child crossing the road acted unpredictably and that there wasn’t anything he could do to avoid the accident. But I’m satisfied Advantage have considered this and concluded Mr F hit a child who is a particularly vulnerable third party after passing a bus while approaching a school. And they said Mr F was the road user so had the higher duty of care in the circumstances. They concluded that, based on the evidence they reviewed, they wouldn’t succeed in court even taking into account his and the witness’ account of what happened. Ultimately, I’m persuaded by Advantage’s reasoning as to why, on the balance of probabilities, they wouldn’t recover costs by taking the pedestrian to court is a fair one and one they’re entitled to take. So, I won’t be directing them to pursue the third-party or change the outcome of the claim. My final decision For the reasons above, I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr F to accept or reject my decision before 21 April 2026. Andrew Wakatsuki-Robinson Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --