A victory for common sense!
Common sense prevailed in the County Court last week as we fought back against the insurance industry
A pushchair carrying a 2-year-old boy was hit by a delivery van, causing the boy to suffer facial injuries. Andrew King was instructed by the family to seek damages.
The driver informed the police who he was employed by and the name of his insurers. A claim was submitted to the insurers who admitted liability for the incident. The insurers were asked to pay £2,900 in damages, later reduced to £2,700 in an attempt to resolve matters without court involvement, but the insurers were not prepared to pay more than £1,500.
Court proceedings were issued earlier this year and when neither the employer nor the insurer attended court, the judge assessed damages and awarded the boy £2,900. As the family had been prepared to accept £2,700 beforehand, the boy was also granted a further amount of £388.52.
Following the hearing, the insurers informed us that they would not be paying the judgment. They explained that although they insured the vehicle, they did not insure the employer and the vehicle was in fact owned by a second company. The insurers instructed a well-known defendant firm of solicitors who objected to the £2,900 judgment and argued that the claim process should be repeated and the damages reassessed by the court.
As a result, we issued an application to the court to resolve the matter based on the Defendant’s solicitors unreasonable conduct. We invited the court to add the second company as a defendant to the claim, to enter judgment against it and to make the same order that had been made against the first company, namely for damages of £2,900 to be awarded as well as the additional sum of £388.52.
Shortly before the court hearing, the insurer’s solicitors offered to pay the boy £2,650 for his injuries, including interest, £638.52 less than the judge assessed them to be worth previously.
At last week’s hearing, the judge had no time for the insurer’s behaviour and found entirely in favour of the boy, our client. Judgment was awarded against the second company for £2,900 and the additional sum of £388.52 was ordered to be paid. In addition, the judge awarded the boy further interest of £107.42, giving a total payment of £3,395.94. The insurers were also ordered to pay all of the legal costs of the application which were caused by their unreasonable stance.
The insurers took unnecessary steps to prevent the court’s judgement from being paid and prevent our client from receiving the damages he was justly awarded. The court awarded the damages the boy was entitled to and penalised the insurers for their unjustified behaviour
Andrew King commented after the Hearing; “This was an unusual situation in which an insurer sought to use a technicality, caused by their own incompetence, to avoid paying an injured victim of an accident what he was entitled to receive. Whilst we were all frustrated by the stance taken by the insurer and their solicitors, I am delighted that justice, and common sense, ultimately prevailed.”