i. The Defendant
building insurers knew from Sept 2005 that the third party commercial
leaseholder to their insured was suffering material damage to two of her
commercial premises. Both of her premises were insured for material damage with
her landlords building insurance policy taken out for her benefit and for which
she had paid a premium, making her a ‘noted interest’ on the building insurance
policy, as seen in her two leases. The defendant building insurers breached
their expressed ‘duty’ or ‘promise’ to make her, who was the beneficiary of
the policy, ‘held harmless’ by repair or reinstatement of her premises.
ii. Further the defendant
building insurers by refusing to settle the valid claim therefore failed to enable
the insured landlord policyholder, to comply with the legalities of the
claimants leases, in Para 7 thereof: - “… in the event of damage to the demised
premises by any of the insured risks (the policy holder) is obliged with all
convenient speed to lay out and apply in rebuilding repairing or otherwise
reinstating the demised premises all monies received by virtue of such
insurance.” by a protracted avoidance of the disrepair claims for material
damage, leaving the disrepair to continue.
iii. Under the (third party
to the building insurance) commercial leases, the landlord was obliged to
effect claims on their building insurance policy promptly wherever they had
cover. They instigated this in Sept 2005 in respect of a number of disrepairs
dated from 2003/4/5 that the third party claimants had either had to fix
themselves by paying for their own emergency contractors and/or in some cases
the landlord had fixed repairs themselves too. The landlord’s building insurers
that the landlord had claimed for in the 2005 property claim form reimbursed an
amount of just over £3,000 to the third party claimants. Since the structure
was insured by the landlord there was some ‘property owner liability’ claims by
the third party which were left outstanding by the insurer, as well as two
major structural repairs, that neither the landlord nor the third party could
afford to pay for. This amounted to professional negligence as the repairs in
both commercial premises rendered both businesses unable to trade from and with
commercial rents and running costs still having to be paid, the delays amounted
to undue stress and could not been seen in insurance law as a ‘duty of good
faith’ a ‘promise’ or any other kind of ‘duty’ to hold the insured or their
third party ‘harmless’ nor did the insurers actions prevent further loss
occurring in a commercial reality for a medium income small business.
iv. The insurers then acted
in ‘bad faith’ instead ensuing a protracted avoidance of the valid claims and
this prevented further action being taken promptly in respect of risks covered
for in the building insurance policy. The commercial consequences of the
insurers actions could only lead to the third party being continuously
penalised financially and this was not only foreseeable but as it was no matter
how many times there was an opportunity to mitigate the claimants continued
losses in terms of rising interest, reimbursement, reinstatement or repair the
insurers failed to do so until they arbitrarily set the landlord up against the
tenant to fight out an unnecessary liability claim where the Court of Appeal in
2013 would eventually state both parties were insured so neither was liable for
repair, in a waste of time, effort and extraordinary costs to themselves and for
what?
v. The Defendants building
insurers continued to act in ‘bad faith’ by paying for the legal costs of one
side of a situation that they caused and/or permitted to continue a dispute
between the landlord and tenant that would lead to years of court proceedings
and they failed to take any sensible and necessary steps to stop, prevent or remedy
the situation. This we were made aware was a commercial decision based on
larger liabilities than the third party claimants alone, potentially leading to
floodgate litigation cases regarding the law of a precedent. They acted in ‘bad
faith’ putting their commercial interests first in a conflict of interest.
vi. The Defendant building
insurers were made aware from the start of the claim in 2005 of the good work
of the third party building insurance claimant and therefore the morally
principled urgency to settle the claims expediently so as not to have a
detrimental effect on such important work, as well as the nature of the
claimants entrepreneurial youth parliament aims, in this commercial social
enterprise associated with the prevention of child abuse which later on during
protracted court proceedings became subject to a police criminal investigation
which became widely publically known as Operation Fernbridge, formerly
Operation Fairbank to which the claimant had been central to and that she had
set up both premises and further, the types of corporate clients she was
attracting and the value of such business. Further, they were made aware of all
other continuing problems occurring as soon as they arose. This however did not
prevent delays in settlement and presents a similar case that had the correct
credentials to overturn the much renowned case of Sprung V Royal Insurances
where there is no damages for delays in paying of a valid claim in England as
opposed to Germany, Italy, United States and Canada, China and even Scotland
and is said to be a much needed law change in England. Some delays as in this
case have dyer consequences.
vii. The defendant building
insurers were negligent in that they delayed in instigating repairs and/or
replacements causing ongoing and increased damage and/or loss of business and
of business opportunity.
viii. They were further
negligent in failing to replace the damaged floor in one of the third party
commercial premises after a flood from the insured landlords property, when it
was foreseeable that if they did not this would cause interruption to business.
ix. They were further
negligent in failing to repair the structure in one of the third party
commercial premises, when it was foreseeable that if they did not this would
make the business illegal to trade from as it had no air.
By reason of all the
aforesaid the Claimant has suffered loss and damage, loss of reputation and
goodwill, distress, depression, stress and inconvenience AND the Claimant claims:
-
1. Damages (Schedule of Loss
to follow)
2. Exemplary damages
3. Further or alternatively,
re-payment of rent paid at £47,994 plus interest during the periods the Claimant was unable in
part or in full to use the premises
4. Interest pursuant to
Section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981
5. Costs
6. Any other remedy the
Court deems fit
No comments:
Post a Comment