Monday, 23 May 2016

Money doesn't matter


 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