At Corclaim we pursue every case where recovery is possible, even from non-standard and sometimes unusual circumstances. We pride ourselves on investigating and pursuing all recovery prospects, even if the pathway to recovery follows a slightly different route.
In this case we received instruction from a large vehicle rental company where their vehicle had been damaged by livestock; clearly something quite different to the RTA insurer route facilitated on a majority of these instructions. Nevertheless, options to alternative recovery were researched and assessed.
The actual circumstances were that we were instructed by a vehicle hire client to recover damages to a vehicle caused by a cow, which had broken away from its herd as it was being moved by a farmer on a quadbike. The driver of our client’s vehicle was driving on an A-road and saw the cow running on the other side of the road, with the farmer on the quadbike trying to catch it. As the farmer was trying to catch the cow, it diverted to our client’s driver’s lane and the farmer followed. The farmer tried to restrain the cow between the quad bike and the roadside hedge, but the cow jumped forward to escape. As it did, it tripped over the quadbike and fell onto our client’s car, causing damage the bonnet.
How our team handled the case
In this case, Connor Thrippleton considered alternative recovery opportunities, and utilising highway code 58 – considered a claim against the farmer/owner of the cattle.
Our claim was submitted to the owner of the cow, the aforementioned dairy farmer, who then reported the incident to their insurers. Initial enquiries with the insurers provided a dispute in liability for the incident, stating that our driver was instructed to stop their vehicle but didn’t.
We highlighted the differing versions of events given by both the farmer and our driver, providing that our driver was stationary at the time of the collision. We also highlighted that the cow was loose and not in the farmer’s control. We raised rule 58 of the highway code: “Animals being herded. These should be kept under control at all times. You should, if possible, send another person along the road in front to warn other road users, especially at a bend or the brow of a hill. It is safer not to move animals after dark, but if you do, then wear reflective clothing and ensure that lights are carried (white at the front and red at the rear of the herd).”
The farmer should have kept full control of their livestock, however they did not. Instead, the cow was rampant on the public highway, and in the farmer’s attempt to restrain it, caused it to become spooked and to try to escape further (perhaps trying to jump over the moon?), landing on the bonnet of our client’s vehicle and causing damage.
The case was initially rejected, and liability disputed, however our team were not put off and pursued the claim through to a successful conclusion. The insurers admitted liability and settled the claim on a 100% basis for the approximate sum of £2,000.
A note from Connor Thrippleton
“The settlement of this claim illustrates just how far the scope of ULR can stretch, even under the most unusual of incidents. Encountering a herd of dairy cows whilst on the roads is not a common event, neither is an instruction to pursue a recovery under these circumstances. However, utilising rule 58 of the Highway Code and applying this to the happenings of the incident proved to be the influential factor in ending the liability dispute in a swift manner, resulting in a 100% recovery for our client.”
“As part of my assessment of client incidents, I always keep a keen eye out for all possible recoveries. That’s one of the benefits of having an experienced recovery team reviewing all incident reports, we can sometimes spot opportunities where clients or competitors might not.”
Working with us
If you’re interested in discussing this type of claim further, don’t hesitate to get in touch with our team. Being specialists in ULR, we take a no-nonsense approach because we’re in business to represent you and do so by pro-actively pursuing your losses to the fullest extent. This is why we’re dedicated to making sure every opportunity for loss recovery is explored thoroughly, even under non-standard circumstances.
Contact our team today if you wish to discuss how we could help your business. Call us free on 03300 945 100.
Author: Connor Thrippleton
We were instructed in providing uninsured loss recovery services for our client, a leading civil engineering services contractor specialising in highways and other infrastructure work, following a collision with a third party.
The situation
Just over £2,000.00 worth of damage was caused to our client’s vehicle, however as a result of the vehicle being damaged, our client was also unable to fulfil contracted jobs for the period that the vehicle was off the road being repaired. Due to the nature of our client’s business, specific vehicles are booked to undertake specific work and our client was able to provide us with an account of the booked jobs and the rates charged for those jobs. The jobs which were unable to be attended totalled approximately £10,000.00 in expected revenue.
Timeline of events
Our client’s HGV was damaged in summer 2023 by a dangerously overtaking third party, and as a result of the collision the vehicle was off the road being repaired for a period of 6 days.
A letter of claim was sent to the third party insurers in September 2024. As no settlement offer was forthcoming, the claim was litigated in November 2024. In December 2024, settlement was agreed, and the repair costs and lost revenue sums were settled in full.
How we helped our client’s case
We were able to present the case that our client was unable to source a replacement vehicle in the short period the vehicle was in for repair immediately after the collision, and as the booked jobs were therefore unable to be attended, the third party liable for the damage should also be liable for the lost revenue, maximising the recovery for the disruption caused to our client.
A note from our expert Lauren Arnett
“This claim demonstrates the recoverability of hidden losses not just limited to the ‘bent metal’, and our understanding that being unable to use a vehicle in a client’s fleet has wider impacts on the business than just dealing with the repairs. Our client provided us with a detailed breakdown of the dates, jobs and rates booked, and we were therefore able to present this evidence and secure a speedy settlement.”
Working with us
If you’re interested in discussing whether your business could be owed for hidden losses, please don’t hesitate to contact our team today. Being specialists in ULR, we understand the reach of the impact caused when a vehicle is unable to be used as usual, and how this can affect the profitability of a business. This is why we’re dedicated to making sure every opportunity for loss recovery is explored thoroughly.
Contact our team today if you wish to discuss how we could help your business. Call us free on 03300 945 100.
Author: Lauren Arnett
In April 2023 a South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS) vehicle was involved in a Road Traffic Collision in Southampton. The collision occurred with another vehicle as the ambulance was proceeding across a traffic light junction, through red lights but whilst on full emergency lights and sirens.
Timeline and actions taken
The claim was initially reported to SCAS’s motor insurers as a fault incident however it was then referred to ourselves as having prospects for recovery. We reviewed the case and obtained the dash-cam footage, critical in apportioning liability in incidents of this nature. Specifically, the dash-cam provided conclusive evidence of the SCAS vehicle’s speed on approach and through the junction, the presence of emergency lights / sirens and the actions of the other driver involved. The incident locus and visibility at the scene also contribute to the liability assessment.
Following acceptance of the case as having strong recovery prospects, an askMID search revealed the third party vehicle had no insurance. Once repairs were completed, in the sum of £25k, a claim was submitted to the driver direct and also to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.
In the absence of settlement, proceedings were subsequently raised against the offending driver. Quantum was challenged but we were able to substantiate the loss values with support of the client. The claim has now been agreed in full with recovery totalling £30.5k to include repairs and loss of use.
A note from our client
“This is absolutely fantastic news and a fantastic result. I can see how much work has gone into this our end and from yours, since the accident happened back in April 2023. I just wanted to say a really big thank you and it was worth taking a considered and strategic approach, submitting to you and you following it through.”
Summary
Very often initial perceptions regarding liability might be incorrect, just because an ambulance is proceedings across a junction on a red light does not constitute fault. Ambulances have exceptions and by the same token, another vehicle driver is not free to simply proceed through a green light without taking due caution and checking the path is clear. The attention to detail regarding all of the incident circumstances here have contributed to a successful and rightful outcome.
Author: Oliver Burke
We received instructions from one of our clients on a case where, in August 2016, structural damage had been caused to an overbridge by a third party vehicle, with comprehensive repairs required.
Our team was instructed to recover uninsured repair costs from the vehicle operator and their motor insurers.
The situation
A haulage vehicle transporting machinery collided with a bridge as it was trying to pass underneath. The machinery was not loaded to the vehicle in the correct manner. This was a significant repair, with original repair costs assessed and considered to be more than £2m. Our client and repairing contractor managed losses so that final repair costs were much reduced, although it was several years before reinstatement of the bridge was complete and the quantum pack finalised.
The letter of claim was finally issued in May 2021.
Needless to say, our client encountered numerous challenges from the defendant loss adjustor, who intended to reduce the claim value. Requests for additional information and documentation were complied with however it only achieved an offer of approximately two thirds of the actual cost. Our client instructed us in November 2021 in order to expedite an increased settlement.
Actions taken
The most pressing issue was limitation and our team agreed with the defendants not to issue proceedings, instead entering into a post-limitation standstill period.
During that period further evidence was obtained and exchanged, independent expert advice was obtained in relation to quantum and substantial negotiations entertained.
Outcome
We agreed an increased settlement of £1m+ including legal costs, which was agreeable to both parties.
Author: Ian Evans
We received instructions from an emergency services client on a case where their vehicle was involved in a collision with an ice cream van. The circumstances were that both vehicles collided head-on, on a narrow country lane with little visibility for both parties prior to the impact. Our client’s vehicle had emergency lights activated but no sirens. We were instructed to recover uninsured losses including repairs and loss of use.
Our approach
We carried out preliminary investigations to obtain a full driver/passenger statement, the dashcam footage from our client’s vehicle and from the third-party driver, details of their motor insurers.
We further liaised through the appropriate channels with our client and their business partners to collate quantum documentation. We issued our Letter Before Action to the third party and their named motor insurer. That was submitted in full but with the knowledge this was a likely split liability matter and negotiations would be necessary.
Actions taken
Alongside our claim against the third party / third party insurer, the third party submitted his own vehicle damage and personal injury claim against our client, via their insurer.
We liaised with the insurer to share evidence and discuss the appropriate strategy to achieve the optimum settlement for our mutual client. We received no response or engagement from the named third party or their insurer. With the case in impasse, we discussed next steps with the insurer. It was mutually agreed that proactive litigation was necessary and the only route to resolution, so we took the lead on that to provide our client some advantage as the claimant.
As expected, our court proceedings were defended and with the third-party vehicle damage / personal injury included as a counterclaim. Again we liaised with the insurer to agree the counterclaim would be defended by this firm to ensure consistency and manage costs.
Despite proper RTA notice however, there was still no engagement from the third-party insurer. They later provided evidence that the vehicle was in fact sold prior to the incident and they held no insurable interest. We took the decision at that point to make an application to the court to add the Motor Insurers’ Bureau as second defendant, intended to protect payment of the client’s claim in the event of a successful outcome.
The Defendant later produced a purported insurance policy which they said covered them for the incident. The insurer however disputed it was valid. Due to the uncertainty, we took the decision to make an application to court for the third party to disclose the position on his vehicle insurance. The court order followed and the third party was ordered to clarify his insurance arrangements.
Outcome
It was not until the day of the trial that the Defendant admitted he was uninsured at the time of the incident. The MIB at that point agreed they would satisfy any Judgment obtained against the Defendant. Due to unforeseen circumstances, our client’s driver was unable to attend trial and as such we had instructions to negotiate settlement on a split basis.
Settlement was agreed between the parties on a 60/40 basis in the claimant’s favour with the trial utilised to deal with the issue of costs only.
We were therefore successful in recovering 60% of our client’s repairs and loss of use, plus the legal costs of pursuing the matter. The outcome justified the litigation as there were no offers of settlement prior. It was unfortunate that the Defendant’s dishonesty and misconduct throughout prolonged this litigation to nearly 2.5 years and this was reflected in the substantial costs order made against them.
Author: Oliver Burke
We successfully resolved a standstill in negotiations between insurers and an animal conservation sanctuary, after the charity was left with property damage caused by a third party.
The situation
An animal conservation charity was left with a large hole in one of its buildings after an unattended car that did not have its handbrake fully secured rolled over the pathway and collided with it, causing significant damage and necessitating immediate repairs.
Following the incident, the third-party insurer appointed a loss adjuster to assess the damage and determine the cost of repairs, valuing them at £6,031. However, as the sanctuary is situated in a rural area, it faced difficulties finding a suitable builder to carry out the repairs for this amount.
With limited options available, the charity received a quote from the only available contractor in the vicinity, amounting to £10,201.08 – exceeding the insurer’s valuation by a significant margin and leaving the sanctuary with a financial deficit. The sanctuary tried sourcing quotes from further afield but found no one willing to undertake the work due to the distance.
How we helped
Despite the evidence of the higher repair quote, the third-party insurer was unwilling to increase its contribution, leading to a standstill in negotiations. As a result, we were appointed and contacted the loss adjuster, asking them to cover the £10,201.08 quote, arguing that this was, as the law states, the “reasonable cost of repair” given the sanctuary’s rural location and lack of available alternatives.
This was denied, so we issued legal proceedings against the insurer, and the claim was swiftly settled in full, allowing the sanctuary to proceed with the necessary repairs without incurring any out-of-pocket expenses and enabling it to continue its vital conservation efforts.
A note from Oliver Burke
The financial strain resulting from the £3,900 deficit between the insurer’s assessment and the actual repair costs left the sanctuary in a challenging position. As a charitable organisation, it did not have the spare funds readily available to cover the shortfall and proceed with the repairs.
The loss adjuster argued that the work could be carried out for just over £6,000 if the sanctuary shopped around. However, this was unreasonable – it was a completely unique case due to the sanctuary’s remote location. We are thrilled we were able to recover the costs in full, meaning the sanctuary could get its building repaired and continue its fantastic rescue and rehabilitation work.”
Contact us
Many businesses overlook property uninsured loss recovery, mostly because they are not aware the opportunity for recovery exists. Whatever the circumstances, if an incident was caused by someone not directly employed by your business, we can help you get that money back. Contact us for more information.
Author: Oliver Burke
