legal advice - compensation claim

[speedyman]

My sons girlfriend was badly bitten by a security companies guard dog which was not on a lead in a public place. The case went to court and she was awarded £10k compensation against the company. The security company has gone bankrupt and their insurance company won't pay out under public liability as they say the security company failed to notify them of the incident in time.

The security company was insured for public liability with the insurance company at the time of the incident so I maintain that any clauses they have with the company are irelevant for the purposes of a public liability claim.
My sons girlfriend was represented by a legal team during the claim in court who we are not happy with, so I am looking for some independant advice now.

So is the insurance company trying it on. What steps do we need to do to get this resolved.

Thanks

Speedyman

[JustinP1]

If it has got this far you need proper legal advice from someone who is totally party to the proceedings.

Have you paid your legal team yet, or are they claiming their fees from the other side? If so, then you need to leave that up to them.

Why are you so unhappy with them?

[speedyman]

I am not dealing with this directly myself, but from what I have been told by my son. The legal team stated that they have never come across this situation before and are not sure what to do next.

They have been engaged on the basis of claiming their costs in addition to the £10k compensation. So it would be in their interests to pursue this further to recover their costs.

It seems a bit strange to me that they don't seem to know what to do next. They certainly seem to be giving the impression that there is nothing we can do now.

As a layman, I think that the case is clear cut, public liability insurance is there to protect the public and the insurance company should pay out and claim their costs against the directors of the bankrupt company, if possible, if there has been a breach of their conditions.

I guess i'm looking for any lawyers on here to answer this.

Speedyman

[Lurking Lawyer]

speedy man said:

As a layman, I think that the case is clear cut, public liability insurance is there to protect the public and the insurance company should pay out and claim their costs against the directors of the bankrupt company, if possible, if there has been a breach of their conditions.

But it isn't that clear cut in practice.

Just about any policy will include a precondition that a claim is notified in a timely fashion. If it isn't, the insurer is justified in declining the claim, which is what appears to have happened here.

Unfortunately, it's then the innocent third party that loses out if the insured is unable to pay the claim itself.

[Red Devil]

speedyman said:

I am not dealing with this directly myself, but from what I have been told by my son. The legal team stated that they have never come across this situation before and are not sure what to do next.

They have been engaged on the basis of claiming their costs in addition to the £10k compensation. So it would be in their interests to pursue this further to recover their costs.

It seems a bit strange to me that they don't seem to know what to do next. They certainly seem to be giving the impression that there is nothing we can do now.

As a layman, I think that the case is clear cut, public liability insurance is there to protect the public and the insurance company should pay out and claim their costs against the directors of the bankrupt company, if possible, if there has been a breach of their conditions.

I guess i'm looking for any lawyers on here to answer this.

Speedyman

I suggest the legal team are a waste of space and need kicking into touch. IANAL but I'm pretty sure this deals with your situation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/10/conten...
Start with the explanatory notes tab. This will help you understand why I think you have been badly advised.

It appears that the insurer is contending that liability has not been establshed because the bankrupt company never informed them of a potential claim. The liability question is explicitly covered by Section 2 of the Act. Proceedings will have to be brought to establish said liability. Whether they will be successful is another matter but the legal team should be aware of the legislation and be able to advise accordingly.

Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 23 February 22:14

[speedyman]

If this claim was a multi-million pound claim say a train crash, are you saying its ok to declare yourself bankrupt (and incompedent) and everyone avoids all liabiities to injured third parties.

If that were the case can a claim be pursued either via criminal injuries board or the Insurance ombudsman.

Speedyman

[Red Devil]

speedyman said:

If this claim was a multi-million pound claim say a train crash, are you saying its ok to declare yourself bankrupt (and incompedent) and everyone avoids all liabiities to injured third parties.

If that were the case can a claim be pursued either via criminal injuries board or the Insurance ombudsman.

Speedyman

I assume this is in response to Lurking Lawyer. No of course it's not OK. Third party rights against insurers have been in existence for 80 years. Another reason why I cannot understand why the legal team are in such a dither over this.

The 2010 Act repeals this one. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/20-21/25

[R1 Loon]

speedyman said:

If this claim was a multi-million pound claim say a train crash, are you saying its ok to declare yourself bankrupt (and incompedent) and everyone avoids all liabiities to injured third parties.

If that were the case can a claim be pursued either via criminal injuries board or the Insurance ombudsman.

Speedyman

Oh dear, you really don't understand this do you?

[Rydal]

Red Devil said:

I suggest the legal team are a waste of space and need kicking into touch. IANAL but I'm pretty sure this deals with your situation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/10/conten...
Start with the explanatory notes tab. This will help you understand why I think you have been badly advised.

It appears that the insurer is contending that liability has not been establshed because the bankrupt company never informed them of a potential claim. The liability question is explicitly covered by Section 2 of the Act. Proceedings will have to be brought to establish said liability. Whether they will be successful is another matter but the legal team should be aware of the legislation and be able to advise accordingly.

Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 23 February 22:14

This would be the answer but I think I'm correct in saying that the 2010 Act is not yet in force. I believe it is expected to come into force in April. Under the old 1930 Act the insurer is entitled to escape liability on the basis of non-notification by their insured. This is one of the criticisms of the old Act that, once in force, the 2010 Act will remedy.

[Rydal]

Red Devil said:

I suggest the legal team are a waste of space and need kicking into touch. IANAL but I'm pretty sure this deals with your situation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/10/conten...
Start with the explanatory notes tab. This will help you understand why I think you have been badly advised.

It appears that the insurer is contending that liability has not been establshed because the bankrupt company never informed them of a potential claim. The liability question is explicitly covered by Section 2 of the Act. Proceedings will have to be brought to establish said liability. Whether they will be successful is another matter but the legal team should be aware of the legislation and be able to advise accordingly.

Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 23 February 22:14

This would be the answer but I think I'm correct in saying that the 2010 Act is not yet in force. I believe it is expected to come into force in April. Under the old 1930 Act the insurer is entitled to escape liability on the basis of non-notification by their insured. This is one of the criticisms of the old Act that, once in force, the 2010 Act will remedy.

[speedyman]

R1 Loon said:

speedyman said:

If this claim was a multi-million pound claim say a train crash, are you saying its ok to declare yourself bankrupt (and incompedent) and everyone avoids all liabiities to injured third parties.

If that were the case can a claim be pursued either via criminal injuries board or the Insurance ombudsman.

Speedyman

Oh dear, you really don't understand this do you?

No I don't, but i do understand sharp practice when I see it.

[STW2010]

R1 Loon said:

speedyman said:

If this claim was a multi-million pound claim say a train crash, are you saying its ok to declare yourself bankrupt (and incompedent) and everyone avoids all liabiities to injured third parties.

If that were the case can a claim be pursued either via criminal injuries board or the Insurance ombudsman.

Speedyman

Oh dear, you really don't understand this do you?

Hence why he's asking for advice.

[speedyman]

Rydal said:

Red Devil said:

I suggest the legal team are a waste of space and need kicking into touch. IANAL but I'm pretty sure this deals with your situation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/10/conten...
Start with the explanatory notes tab. This will help you understand why I think you have been badly advised.

It appears that the insurer is contending that liability has not been establshed because the bankrupt company never informed them of a potential claim. The liability question is explicitly covered by Section 2 of the Act. Proceedings will have to be brought to establish said liability. Whether they will be successful is another matter but the legal team should be aware of the legislation and be able to advise accordingly.





act ???

Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 23 February 22:14

This would be the answer but I think I'm correct in saying that the 2010 Act is not yet in force. I believe it is expected to come into force in April. Under the old 1930 Act the insurer is entitled to escape liability on the basis of non-notification by their insured. This is one of the criticisms of the old Act that, once in force, the 2010 Act will remedy.

Does that mean that in April we can then pursue a claim under the new 2010 act.

Thanks

Speedyman

[Red Devil]

Rydal said:

This would be the answer but I think I'm correct in saying that the 2010 Act is not yet in force. I believe it is expected to come into force in April. Under the old 1930 Act the insurer is entitled to escape liability on the basis of non-notification by their insured. This is one of the criticisms of the old Act that, once in force, the 2010 Act will remedy.

Good point. I forgot to check whether the relevant S.I. was in force.
The insurer can indeed use the technical defence of non-notification by the insured.
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/third_parties_insurers_ri...
It is manifestly unfair and the 2010 Act can't come into effect soon enough.

Leaving a loophole whereby all that is needed to avoid paying out is for the insured to sit on their hands seems very poor drafting. Were those running companies less likely to practice inaction when the original legislation was introduced?

It seems the injured party is stuffed. I am still surprised the legal team appeared headless. They should still have been able to advise on where she stood.

speedyman said:

Does that mean that in April we can then pursue a claim under the new 2010 act.

Thanks

Speedyman

I don't know but I would doubt it. Otherwise it could open up insurers to a potential raft of retrospective claims where the trigger event had already taken place. How far back could one go?

[fergywales]

Red Devil said:

How far back could one go?

To the day that the act comes into force, and not a day before.

[Noger]

Was the security company solvent at the time ?

If they were able to notify, but breached the warranty, then it would seem possible to repudiate.

You seem to be looking for some statutory liability, like the RTA, that would make the insurer liable ?

It does sound like you started an action against a company, which has subsequently become insolvent ? Not sure how either act would help.

Non-notification clauses are notoriously complicated in their classification, and thus ability to be used to repudiate. That needs specialist legal knowledge.

It does seem unfair that you may have to wait in line with the other creditors.

[anonymous-user]

There is always a risk that a party sued to judgment will not be good for the money. At best, you can make a claim for a partial payment from the liquidator of an insolvent company, but secured creditors such as the company's bank will rank ahead of judgment creditors.

Legislation rarely has retrospective effect and the 2010 Act will not apply in this case.

I am not sure why you are unhappy with the lawyers, a sit does not sound as though they have mishandled the case.

[Carrot]

fk me... 10k for being bitten by a dog?

I am in the wrong job

[speedyman]

Carrot said:

fk me... 10k for being bitten by a dog?

I am in the wrong job

Well lets hope you get bitten many times walking across a Tesco car park minding your own business and that you have scares for life on your legs and you also need a skin graft.
Plus the time off work to attend hospital appointments.

And for your information the dog had previously bitten two other people before by being let off a lead in a public place without a muzzle. The dog was destroyed after this incident and not before time. The owners should have been to.

So keep your comments to yourself if you have nothing constructive to say and go back to school as your clearly not old enough for a job.

[anonymous-user]

One rule that I adopt on the internet is never to say anything online that I would not say to a person face to face.