Prospects of success below 51%
The insurer relies on legal advice saying the underlying case does not have a better-than-even chance of succeeding.
Legal expenses insurance disputes
Legal Expenses Insurance Claim Rejected?
Legal expenses insurance can be valuable when you need to pursue or defend a dispute, but claims are often refused because the insurer says the case lacks reasonable prospects of success, is disproportionate, arose before cover began, was notified too late or must be handled by its panel solicitor. We review the policy, legal opinion and insurer's reasoning before identifying the strongest realistic next step.
✓Free Initial Review
✓Policy & Legal Opinion Review
✓FOS Complaint Support
✓Barrister & Litigation Routes
Why legal expenses claims become disputed
The Insurer May Accept the Dispute Exists but Still Refuse to Fund It
Legal expenses policies contain their own funding conditions. The useful question is whether the insurer has applied those conditions fairly and whether the legal opinion or evidence it relies upon actually supports the refusal.
Dispute said to be disproportionate
The likely legal costs are said to be too high compared with the amount or value at stake in the underlying case.
Pre-existing event or dispute
The insurer says the event giving rise to the legal action began, was foreseeable or came to light before the policy started.
Late notification
The insurer argues the legal dispute was reported too late or after important steps had already been taken without its agreement.
Choice of solicitor refused
You want to instruct your own solicitor, but the insurer says you must continue with its panel solicitor or accept restricted funding terms.
Funding withdrawn mid-case
The insurer initially funded the matter but later says prospects, proportionality or another condition is no longer satisfied.
What IDS reviews
The Decision Often Turns on the Quality of the Legal Opinion
When funding is refused because of prospects of success, the insurer is usually relying on a legal assessment. We look at whether that assessment addresses the actual case, evidence and legal issues and whether the insurer has applied the policy correctly.
The insured legal dispute
We identify which section of the legal expenses policy is engaged and whether the underlying dispute falls within the type of legal action insured.
The prospects opinion
We examine who provided the opinion, whether they were suitably qualified, the evidence and law considered, and whether the reasoning is clear and specific.
Proportionality and funding terms
We review the amount at stake, likely costs, indemnity limit, hourly-rate provisions and any policy wording relied upon to restrict or refuse funding.
Timing and solicitor choice
We examine when the dispute arose, when it was notified and whether the policy and stage of proceedings support the insurer's position on representation.
Financial Ombudsman approach
What Does the Financial Ombudsman Look At?
The Financial Ombudsman says legal expenses policies commonly require a proposed legal action to have reasonable prospects of success, which it generally interprets as a 51% or greater chance of winning. It does not usually decide the merits of the underlying legal dispute itself; instead it looks at whether the insurer relied on appropriate legal advice when deciding whether to fund the claim.
Where the insurer's legal opinion is clear, well-reasoned and not obviously wrong, the insurer may be entitled to rely on it. But if you obtain a genuinely comparable contrary legal opinion, the disagreement may need further consideration. The Ombudsman says that, where legal opinions conflict, a further opinion from a suitably qualified barrister may sometimes be appropriate.
Read the Financial Ombudsman's current guidance on legal expenses insurance.
How we approach the dispute
From Funding Refusal to a Focused Challenge
The goal is to identify exactly which funding condition the insurer says has failed and whether the evidence it relies upon is strong enough to justify that decision.
Identify the funding condition
We establish whether the refusal is based on prospects, proportionality, timing, solicitor choice, an exclusion or another policy requirement.
Test the legal and factual basis
The legal opinion, evidence, chronology and relevant policy terms are reviewed to identify whether the insurer's reasoning can be challenged.
Escalate where appropriate
The next step may involve further legal evidence, a formal complaint, FOS where eligible, or a specialist barrister opinion where conflicting legal assessments need resolving.
What to send us
Start With the Funding Decision and the Legal Opinion Behind It
You do not need to prepare a complete litigation bundle before contacting us. Send what you have and we can identify which further documents may matter.
The insurer's refusal or withdrawal-of-funding letter
Legal expenses policy wording and schedule
Solicitor or barrister opinions on prospects
Key documents from the underlying legal dispute
Chronology and important limitation or hearing dates
Correspondence about solicitor choice, costs or hourly rates
Where barrister input can matter
Conflicting Legal Opinions May Need a More Senior View
Legal expenses disputes are unusual because the insurer's funding decision may itself depend on legal advice. Where there is a genuine conflict between comparable legal opinions, IDS can help organise the evidence and, where appropriate, facilitate access to a suitably authorised specialist barrister for an independent opinion.
Review of the insurer's legal funding decision
Structured complaint to the legal expenses insurer
Financial Ombudsman support where eligible
Specialist barrister opinion where appropriate
Common questions
Legal Expenses Insurance Dispute FAQs
Can I challenge a decision that my case has less than 51% prospects of success?
Potentially. The insurer is usually entitled to rely on a clear and properly reasoned opinion from a suitably qualified lawyer. If you disagree, a comparable independent legal opinion addressing the same evidence and issues can be important.
Can I choose my own solicitor?
The answer depends on the stage of the case, the policy and any conflict of interest. The Financial Ombudsman says insurers can often require a panel solicitor before legal proceedings are necessary, but once proceedings need to be started the policyholder should generally be allowed to choose their own solicitor, subject to reasonable funding terms.
What if my solicitor and the insurer's solicitor disagree about prospects?
A genuine conflict between qualified and comparable legal opinions may justify further review. In some circumstances, a further opinion from a suitably qualified barrister can be relevant to resolving the funding dispute.
Is the initial review free?
Yes. The initial review is free and there is no obligation to proceed. If further work appears appropriate, the proposed scope and pricing can be explained before you decide what to do next.