Insurance

Product Liability

• Acting for insurers and their insureds in major product liability cases in France, Spain, Norway and the United States, arising from the supply of marine parts, refrigeration equipment and agricultural products.

• Acting for a major veterinary pharmaceutical company in product liability proceedings in Denmark in which the client has been awarded substantial damages.

Fraud

• A Pursuer exaggerated grossly the injuries that she suffered as a result of a minor road traffic accident. Good quality surveillance evidence helped to prove this and ultimately, the case was settled for a nominal sum. The case appeared before a Court of Session Judge for a hearing on expenses at which the Judge expressed his views about the conduct of the Pursuer. We asked the Judge to produce a Note detailing these views and this has been used by the insurers to lobby for prosecution of the Pursuer as part of their ongoing anti-fraud campaign.

• Acting for an insurer in a Court of Session litigation where the pursuer, who was seeking an indemnity in terms of his policy, was suspected of being a party to the setting of the fire.

• Acting for a insurer and advising them on whether there was sufficient evidence to avoid the policy on the basis that the insured had acted fraudulently.

Multi-jurisdictional Claims

All of the following cases involve considerations of conflict of laws and multi-jurisdictions.

• Acting for a major US insurer and its multi-national insureds in the creation of a novel offshore settlement arrangement arising from a major terrorist incident involving fatalities and injuries to individuals of numerous nationalities.

• Acting for a US insurer, its insureds and self insured multinationals, including petrochemical companies, in respect of industrial accidents in North Africa, Kosovo, Italy, Nigeria, Angola, the Ukraine, Columbia, the UAE, Norway and the Netherlands.

• Acting for insurers and their insured in major losses arising from turbine failures in England, Belgium, Austria and Indonesia.

• Acting for a major US insurer in respect of policy response to mass tort litigation in the United States.

Personal Injury

Non-catastrophic

• In a motor case we achieved a settlement for insurers at 20% of the amount sued for in a case raised by the passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver. The claimant suffered serious multiple injuries. It was claimed there was residual physical disability, as well as psychological problems which affected the claimant's employability. Early and detailed investigations disclosed sufficient information to enable a substantial contributory negligence argument to be advanced. Also, reports from appropriate medical experts provided sufficient evidence to set up a robust challenge to the claimant’s evidence on employability. This combination put us in a strong negotiating position for the insurers, leading to the substantial discount achieved on settlement.

Catastrophic Claims

• We negotiated successfully a pre-litigation settlement on a catastrophic claim where the injured party suffered incomplete tetraplegia. A settlement was achieved at less than half a million pounds. A good result, given the medical and care evidence. The insurers’ rehabilitation scheme played a significant role in preparing the ground for meaningful dialogue between the parties at an early stage. However, we were also persistent in pushing the claimant’s agents to meet with us, to obtain evidence to allow them to consider our offers in settlement and in discussing means other than by payment of damages by which settlement could be facilitated.

• We settled a case where the injured party was a young boy who suffered a brain injury when his father crashed the vehicle in which they were travelling. In the event that the claimant’s evidence was accepted then the claim could have been worth somewhere between £1.5 and £2m. Eventually we settled at less than £1m. This was achieved following meetings with the claimant’s agents at which we discussed novel means by which we might bridge the gap between us. In particular we discussed the possibility of funding a meeting between the two paediatric neurologists. We also brought an independent financial adviser to the meeting in order to consider whether some form of periodic payment arrangement might allow both parties to compromise.

• We settled a case for a major insurer where the injured party suffered a frontal lobe brain injury with resultant physical, neurological and psychiatric injury. At £4.5 million, the sum sued for made this case the insurers’ highest value personal injury case during 2007. A major issue in this case was the extent of future care which would be required by the injured party. We were successful in settling the case at under £2 million.

• bto was instructed to take over the handling of a litigation on behalf of Dutch insurers in a road traffic case involving a head injury where the claimant alleged that his brain injury had caused bi-polar disorder which precluded him from continuing his legal studies to become a barrister. The medical issues were extremely complex in relation to both causation and prognosis and we were not assisted by a very wide divergence of views amongst the many medical experts involved. In spite of these difficulties, we were able to settle the case within a matter of months by (a) obtaining and updating medical evidence from eminent experts (b) testing that evidence quickly in consultation (c) deciding on a strategy for early disposal and (d) an early pre-trial meeting which resulted in settlement after proceedings were raised but long before trial.

• In a case involving allegations of workplace bullying and harassment, we were successful in arguing at a legal debate that much of the Pursuer’s complex case was irrelevant. The case was based on a common law duty of care owed by the employer and a breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The common law case was dismissed in its entirety, leaving only the (relatively novel) issue of the vicarious liability of the employer under the 1997 Act to be considered at Proof. The success of this argument has focussed substantially the issues in dispute and will save the insurers time and money when the Proof proceeds.

• We argued successfully for dismissal of a case of an aggrieved ex-employee claiming damages for psychiatric harm on the basis that the case was irrelevant on grounds of foreseeability. Costs were awarded and recovered from the unsuccessful Pursuer.

Health & Safety Experience

Medical Negligence Experience

Professional Negligence Experience