BUSINESS CLAIMS
There are many reasons why claims are turned down.
Insurance companies may claim that the wrong information was provided when your policy was taken out. Or they may claim that you didn’t take enough care of your property or possessions. They may even point out that there’s a clause in the small print that invalidates your claim.
Whatever reason the insurance company give for turning down your claim it doesn’t mean it’s the end of the matter. For example, if they say your claim has been rejected because of incorrect information and you can prove that you answered all of the questions to the best of your ability, the decision could be overturned.
Here are just a few examples of the kinds of rejected or disputed claims where we can help.
Mr A
Mr A was the owner of a manufacturing business that sustained a loss by fire. The insurer denied his claim by saying he had not fulfilled his obligations under an electrical maintenance warranty. Mr A went to a large city centre law firm who charged him £10,000 to look at his case. However, they concluded he did not have much chance and they dropped the case. However, he was able to obtain a successful outcome and received £300,000 because he instructed a specialist insurance lawyer that we would recommend. As a result his business is still trading today.
Mr B
Mr B was a roofing contractor who had a seven figure claim made against the business following a very serious accident at work. In the course of its investigation of the claim, the insurer sought to void the policy on the grounds of alleged misrepresentations. The result was that the claims were then being made against the business itself without the benefit of insurance. Mr B sought assistance from our panel law firm. They took issue over the voidance and the insurer eventually reached a substantial settlement with the third party and therefore Mr B’s business was protected.
Mr C
Mr C had a flood at his factory but had flood excluded because of previous claims and the business was situated in a known flood risk area. The insurer therefore stated there was simply no cover because flood was not covered. Mr C instructed our recommended lawyer and the insurers maintained their position. Mr C was advised to commence legal proceedings against the insurer. Ultimately, Mr C was able to recover over £200,000 because it was argued that the loss was due to storm which was covered under the policy. The water that penetrated the premises was storm water and there was no actual flood from nearby rivers.
Mr D
Mr D sustained a substantial fire at his premises. The insurer stated that the fire had been caused maliciously by one of his tenants because the police were charging a tenant for arson. The police case against the tenant was dropped but the insurers still said that claim was not covered because malicious damage by tenant was excluded. They said that the police had their own reasons for not pursuing the prosecution. Mr D was considering giving up on the claim but he took advice. The recommended lawyer advised the client that this was a fire claim and not malicious damage. Legal proceedings were commenced. The insurer met the whole claim shortly before trial.