Summary: 

Managing disputed professional indemnity claim arising out the Pensions Mis-selling Review for medium sized IFA following the liquidation of their Broker

Current Status: Settlement negotiations completed, recovery in excess of £250,000

The Story:

The initial instruction from the Client arose from the failure of their broker to pass on to Insurers a number of claims notifications made by the Client at renewal; because of the conditions in the market for IFAs at that time the insured had had to change insurers.  The Client had notified the Broker in writing but the broker’s claims department had simply filed the papers without informing the insurer.  The problems relating to the notification arose at the next renewal, a year after the information should have been provided.  The broker then attempted to argue that the failure to notify was in some way the fault of the Client.  Following an initial report and a meeting, the broker accepted liability for any loss arising out of their failure as they should have notified the insurer on the Client’s behalf.  The Client would be indemnified by the Broker in the event of any shortfall.

Some months later the Client again made contact as the broker had gone into liquidation and the claims were still unresolved.  The value of the broker’s indemnity and assurances had reduced to Nil.

Following a close examination of the original insurance files, we were able to argue that the insurer had in fact been notified in accordance with the terms of the policy that had been issued.  The key condition was a single line at the bottom of one of the pages of the policy which had been obscured in the earlier photocopies supplied.

Insurers paid claims in excess of £250,000 which would otherwise have had to be met by the Client.

Summary: 

Following the successful voidance of a fire policy, assisting a litigant in person to obtain a payment through Mediation from his Broker’s Professional Indemnity Insurers.

Current Status: Six figure payment obtained

The Story:

The Client was a sole trader who had recently set up a new business involving the supply of packaging material.  The business was conducted from a warehouse the contents of which had been insured through a local “High Street” insurance broker.  When the claim was investigated by the insurer it was found that there had been non-disclosure of some material facts in the original submission, as a result the insurer, correctly, voided the policy.  However the proposal form was completed by the broker and not the Client.  The Client maintained that their broker had not asked him the questions on the proposal form but had filled in the answers as he, the broker, thought fit.  The Client also maintained that the broker had obtained his signature under false pretenses by asking him to sight the proposal form as part of the direct debit mandate.

The Client decided to take the broker to court, the broker was supported by his own professional indemnity insurers who provided full legal support.  When the Client had used up all his resources on various solicitors, he continued to pursue the broker as a “litigant in person”.  There had been a case management conference and a timetable had been set.  We became involved at this point.  Over the following months we were able to engage an expert who produced a report by the deadline required by the court,  assist at a hearing at which the client successfully represented himself in resisting an application for discovery which was effectively a ”fishing expedition”.  Subsequently, Solicitors were engaged and the matter eventually went to mediation, which we attended with the Client, where the matter was settled.

The client recovered approximately £150,000 and all his costs.