Background

This case arose following a malfunction of an escalator inside a shopping centre. The handrail belt snapped, causing the escalator to jolt, which led to the Claimant’s wife, an elderly visitor, falling and colliding with the Claimant and another visitor. All three individuals sustained injuries, prompting three separate claims. Liability was conceded across all claims, as the injured parties were blameless, and their age was expected to draw significant sympathy.

Pursuing the manufacturer of the escalator for indemnity under a non-delegable duty of care would have required prolonged and costly arguments. Therefore, we opted to settle the claims directly and evaluate potential recovery against the manufacturer at a later stage.

The total amount claimed was £22,510, and we successfully settled for £16,000. Additionally, we resolved one of the claims from a litigant in person before legal representation was sought and were awaiting medical evidence to finalise the Claimant’s wife’s claim.

How We Helped

We approached this case with thorough preparation and strategic decision-making. A comprehensive liability investigation was completed before the claims were filed, enabling us to swiftly communicate decisions via the claims portal and mitigate cost escalation.

The handling team employed several key strategies:

1. Challenging exaggerated claims

• • The Claimant attempted to link the incident to cardiology issues, including angina. However, we noted that none of the three appointed experts were qualified to confirm this, and a CT scan conducted after the incident revealed no traumatic issues.
  • The Claimant’s expert made an unsupported diagnosis of a major rotator cuff tear, despite no evidence from scans or subsequent medical visits to corroborate it. When this was challenged, it undermined the claim’s credibility.
  • The Claimant also sought reimbursement for a trip, citing mobility issues. We disputed this, as no expert validated mobility impairments, and at his age (85), any mobility restrictions he had were likely pre-existing.

2. Evidence review

• • We used comprehensive documentation, including medical records and photographs of scarring, to support the claims. This rigorous approach discouraged the claimant from making inflated demands and strengthened our negotiation position.

3. Strategic settlements

• • By recognising the severity of the initial laceration wounds and PTSD diagnosis, we made a strong settlement offer, which avoided the risk of additional costs.

4. Expert collaboration

• • Leveraging our adjuster’s knowledge and potential referral to Keoghs SIU, we evaluated whether the Claimant’s solicitor and expert had exaggerated the losses. While fraud was not evident, this vigilance ensured we only paid justified claims.

Outcome

Our proactive and strategic approach yielded a favourable outcome: after successfully challenging the exaggerated claims for cardiology issues, a rotator cuff tear, and an unrelated trip, we managed to settle the claim for a total of £16,000, which is significantly lower than the initial amount claimed (£22,510). Furthermore, by addressing the claim quickly, we minimised the potential cost escalation and even resolved one claim before the litigant could seek solicitor representation. Liability was conceded without costly disputes, which preserved resources while also maintaining the possibility of recovery action for potential negligence in their inspections, thus safeguarding the Insured’s interests while ensuring fair compensation for the injured parties.

Got a claim you’d like to discuss? Get in touch with us today.