BSN is a London based major loss specialist in business and property claims. Under the direction of Steven Newman, a loss assessor with 40 years commercial and insurance experience, the firm offers an efficient and effective claims service for corporate and private clients wishing to ensure their entitlements are satisfied, and their interests, protected.

Subsidence -

The freeholder and lessees of this purpose built block of 20 flats in North London had been struggling with loss adjusters for 3 years when we were asked to act. The adjusters had concluded that the property could be stabilised by incorporating a root barrier between the front of the block and the trees on the local authority footpath, about 6 metres away. They also said that the cost of repairing and redecorating the cracks to the building should be no more than £10,000 - and as that was the policy excess there was nothing for the insurer to pay! We carried out a thorough review of the case history, checked the scope of policy cover, formulated the technical and contractual arguments, and consulted with engineers and surveyors to determine the appropriate remedial scheme. When we could not persuade the loss adjusters as to the merits of our case (and the error of their ways) we presented a comprehensive report with detailed arguments to the insurance company's Chief Executive. The claim was settled by amicable negotiation direct with a senior claims manager of the insurer for over £323,000 and included a scheme of underpinning, repairs and redecoration in every flat, the common parts and the exterior. The insurers also paid for temporary re-housing for some residents, loss of rent for others, and removals and storage. If you are properly insured you have a right to expect the correct solution to a subsidence problem.

Our pensioner client's house was suffering from the still vigorous growth of a mature oak tree in his neighbour's garden on the boundary between the two driveways. The client was reluctant to incur assessors fees, and attempted to pursue the claim himself. He returned to us a couple of years later having become terribly frustrated, and convinced that the loss adjusters were short-changing him on the proposed scope of repairs, which they were. We eventually persuaded the insurers to do the honourable thing, and they agreed to pay to the limit of the policy cover for underpinning, full repairs, temporary accommodation and storage. A policyholder's instinct may be correct, but may founder without accompanying expert argument.

This Victorian terrace in the heart of Hampstead comprised 14 leasehold flats and duplex apartments, the ownership of which was complicated by multiple freeholders and lessees. Fortunately, the head lease of all had in the past been owned by one company, and the insurance had been maintained under one policy. The claim was fraught with technical contention, with the insurers bringing in the country's leading experts to rebut our assertions that underpinning was the appropriate solution. It took some time, and persuasion, but they finally bowed to our technical and contractual arguments and paid out £562,000 for underpinning and repairs. The clients were also able to take advantage of the opportunity to cost-effectively carry out their own roof repairs and general maintenance. Persistence pays.

On the boundary of our clients' detached 1980's built home stood a row of very mature oak trees, some of which were within our clients' land, with the remainder belonging to another. Their roots, following a dry summer, had spread under the foundations of the house and were causing damage. The loss adjusters view was that all the trees should be chopped down and that that would stabilise the property, with only minor superstructure repairs needed. When the other tree owners refused to have them felled, the adjusters persisted with the view that only taking out our clients' trees would solve the problem. They ignored the possibility of ground heave (the reverse effect of subsidence) which is likely to affect structures built after the trees were planted; and also scored an own goal by their own conflicting arguments. We could not reach agreement on the appropriate technical solution, so the clients instructed us to negotiate a cash settlement if we could. The adjusters offered £15,000, which we rejected and complained to the insurer. They stood by their adjusters so we took the case to the Ombudsman, who appointed an independent engineer, and who found in our clients' favour. The claim cost the insurers over £250,000, and our clients were very pleased with the result. Loss adjusters technical arguments can fly in the face of logic when they are trying to save insurers money.