Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|

Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |

Insurance claims advice
Solicitors advising insured parties in disputes over the placing & performance of insurance contracts by brokers & insurers
|
Solicitors here
conduct insurance related litigation and arbitration
for clients throughout the United Kingdom and abroad.
Our solicitors have the experience and resources
needed to undertake the substantial work involved in
insurance claims.
Insurance is the system through which the exposure of
individuals to potential financial liability is
limited. As an insured party facing expense due to an
event covered by your policy, you will want to find
out as soon as possible whether the insurer is going
to cover your costs. We are experienced in conducting
litigation on behalf of claimants and defendants and
can handle a full range of issues from personal injury
and negligence through to property damage. We have the
expertise needed to deal with litigation in the small
claims court as well as the most complex high value
disputes.
Insurance litigation can involve a multitude of issues
that require careful consideration by an experienced
solicitor. It may be necessary to conduct extensive
research into the surrounding facts of the dispute to
identify if the liability claimed can be established
in court. Knowing the relative strength of the claim
either as a claimant or defendant in any litigation
provides a firm foundation for conducting negotiations
going forward.
Careful and thorough analysis of the insurance
contract governing the relationship between the
parties is also often a vital skill. Calculating the
impact of a particular clause on the possible outcome
of any litigation requires a solid grasp of the
principles of contract construction and insurance law.
Our lawyers are abreast of the latest developments in
this field and have the ability to identify the
significant details in even the most complex
documentation.
In all cases, we will be driven from the moment
we are engaged to establish your best way forward. We
will issue our recommendations on realistic options for
early resolution whether through settlement or
arbitration, having considered the relevant factors
under UK and European law.
You will be in a position to
make an informed decision about your next steps after
considering our clear and concise analysis. We will
always explain the financial implications of pursuing a
particular course of action, so that your exposure can
be managed from the outset.
If liability cannot be established without beginning a
court claim, we have proven time and again our ability
to fight our client’s corner with flexibility and
tenacity. We will strive to make sure that any
litigation can be brought to a conclusion as quickly and
economically as possible so as to minimise your
expenditure and inconvenience.
Fixed charge package with
options and recommendations
|
Some examples of insurance case
law:
|
NATIONAL FARMERS
UNION MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD v HSBC
INSURANCE (UK) LTD (2010)
The claimant insurer sought to recover a
contribution from the defendant insurer
towards the costs it had incurred making
payment out under a policy pursuant to the
equitable principles of double insurance
(where someone has taken out two insurance
policies, they are entitled to recover from
either and therefore if one pays out the other
should make a contribution towards the cost of
doing so).
The defendant insurance company had provided
buildings cover to the owners of a property
that was later put up for sale. The policy
provided cover for buyers of the property up
until the point of completion, subject to the
condition that ‘we will not pay… if the
buildings are insured under any other
insurance’.
Prior to the exchange of contracts, the buyers
took out a buildings insurance policy covering
the property with the claimants. This policy
also contained a clause addressing a double
insurance situation. It stated that, ‘if, when
you claim there is other insurance covering
the same accident, illness, damage or
liability, we will only pay our share.’
Between the point of exchange of contracts and
completion of the sale, a substantial fire
broke out at the property. The contract
provided that risk transferred at this point
to the buyers. The fire caused substantial
damage leading to the buyers to make a claim
for £1.85 million under their policy,
which the claimants settled. They then sought
a contribution from the defendants on the
basis of double insurance.
The defendants rejected this, contending that
the buyers were not covered by their policy as
the building was insured under other
insurance. Alternatively, they argued that at
most they could only be considered to be an
excess insurer providing cover for any damage
not covered by the claimant insurers.
The Court found that this was not a case of
double insurance. The only policy covering the
building was the claimant’s policy. The proper
construction of the defendant’s contract was
that indemnity would not be provided to buyers
for any physical loss or damage occurring if
the buyers had themselves taken out insurance
covering the same risk. Furthermore, the
claimant’s clause on its proper construction
did not exclude coverage in the event that the
buyers were otherwise insured (it merely
provided for the distribution of liability
where another policy did in fact cover the
same risk).
|
|
(1) LOYALTREND
LTD (2) SYE RAZVI v (1) CREECHURCH DEDICATED
LTD (ON BEHALF OF ITSELF & AS
REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL OTHER UNDERWRITING
NAMES ON SYNDICATE 962 2002 UNDERWRITING
YEAR) (2) BRIT UW LTD (3) CATLIN (FIVE) LTD
(ON BEHALF OF ITSELF & AS REPRESENTATIVE
FOR ALL OTHER UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF
SYNDICATE 2020) (2010)
The claimant sought to recover losses for
business interruption under their insurance
policy with the defendant, which the defendant
resisted contending that there was a failure
to give timely notice of the damage in
question as required by the insurance
policy.
The claimant operated a high-end fashion
store. Above the store there was a flat, which
used the flat roof of the store as a roof
garden with decking and plant pots. From the
outset of the lease on the store there were
problems with water leaking through this roof
into the store. Between 2003 and 2006
significant amounts of water poured through
the ceiling leading to cracking around the
windows and doors, which a surveyor concluded
to be evidence of subsidence. By 2004, this
problem was beginning to affect the day to day
running of the shop.
The evidence suggested that the claimant knew
of relatively serious damage by the end of
2003 and the fact that this should have been
notified to the insurers. This was not done
however. The claimant approached the insurer
in August 2005 on the basis that the problem
had developed in the spring of that
year.
The insurance policy contained the clause:
‘…the insured shall give immediate notice to
the Insurers… on the happening of any Injury
or damage in consequence of which a claim is
or may be made under this Policy…’ The
defendants submitted that the claimants, by
not bringing the damage to the attention of
the insurers when it occurred, were in breach
of this policy. The great majority of the
damage had taken place before 2005 and indeed
a significant amount had taken place before
the current insurance policy. The latter
damage should have been disclosed at or before
the commencement of that policy.
The Court stated that the test for compliance
with the requirement of immediate notice under
the insurance contract is an objective one;
that is to say the facts should support the
claim that notice was given as required. In
the present case it was found that serious
damage had occurred before the policy and this
should have been notified. Further, notice was
not given in 2004 when the policy was in
operation and the business had been affected.
The notification given in 2005 was in August,
though the damage occurred in the spring of
that year. The defence of failure to give
timely notice succeeded.
|
|
NICHOLAS G JONES
(Claimant) v (1) ENVIRONCOM LTD (2)
ENVIRONCOM ENGLAND LTD (Defendants) & MS
PLC (T/A MILES SMITH INSURANCE BROKERS)
(Third Party) (2010)
The claimant sought damages from the defendant
insurance brokers for negligently failing to
fully explain the duty to disclose information
to its insurer.
The claimant recycled waste electronics,
including fridges. As part of the recycling
process for fridges it was necessary to cut
bolts from the fridge. In order to do this, a
high-powered plasma gun was used. This
generated very high temperatures and created
sparks, leading to a fire risk.
For a period of four years an insurer sourced
through the insurance broker had provided
cover to the claimant for property damage and
business interruption. There were a number of
fires during this period, only two of which
were claimed for under the policy by the
claimant. The other fires were a result of the
use of the plasma guns but were not claimed
for or otherwise disclosed to the insurer.
The claimants sought to renew the insurance
policy and were told initially that the
insurer was not willing to do so as a result
of the earlier fires for which a claim was
made. The insurance broker later managed to
negotiate a renewal for the claimants, albeit
on much more expensive terms.
A number of further minor fires occurred after
this time, culminating in a very serious fire,
which meant that the recycling plant had to be
demolished. The claimants submitted a claim
for this under the new insurance policy, which
was refused on the grounds that disclosure had
not been made of a number of the earlier fires
or of the use of plasma guns.
The claimant alleged that the insurance broker
had been in breach of its duty to fully
explain the obligation of disclosure and to
carry out sufficient enquiries that if carried
out, would have led to the relevant
disclosures being made. The defendant
responded that it had discharged its duty to
inform by explaining the duty to disclose in
documentation sent to the claimant. It further
argued that even if it had made any enquiries
of the insured it would not have disclosed the
relevant information.
The Court stated that a broker has a duty to
satisfy itself that the client fully
understands the requirements of the duty to
disclose. This would usually involve a
specific verbal or written exchange on the
topic. There was no such disclosure in the
present case, which lead to an inadequate
explanation being given of disclosure. It was
held that where such an inadequate explanation
has been given, an insurance broker is under a
higher duty of care when it comes to making
enquiries of information that would be
material for disclosure. This would certainly
have included fires. Had the defendant asked
the claimant about fires, they would probably
have provided a full and frank response about
the occurrence of fires and their association
with the plasma guns. As such, the insurance
broker was in breach of its obligations.
Despite this, when it came to causation, the
Court held that the claimant could not recover
the costs of the fire damage from the broker
because for various reasons (such as the fact
that there was no realistic chance of the
insurance policy having been renewed with full
and frank disclosure of the plasma guns) there
was no realistic prospect of the claimant
having obtained suitable cover but for the
broker’s negligence.
|
| Contact our insurance
solicitors to identify your legal position
|
|
|

|

Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|