New Owner for Leading Claims Specialist Thompson & Bryan

Press Release: London, 15 April, 2013

Leading claims specialist Thompson & Bryan has been acquired by market expert Paul Lawrence, it was announced today.

Thompson & Bryan was established in 1867 and is widely acknowledged as being the leader in the claims industry when it comes to working with insurance brokers and their customers to ensure that claims are prepared correctly and settled in a fair and fuss-free way.

Following an intractable Pension deficit the business went into administration last week and the intellectual property and work in progress has been acquired by Paul.

With the continued recession and soft market, many insurers have been tightening their belts and looking to minimise the amount they are prepared to pay. There has never been a greater need for the client to have a professional working on their behalf to ensure a fair outcome for all parties.

Thompson & Bryan had established themselves as true experts, particularly in areas such as business interruption which can be a minefield for brokers and clients alike. They have a reputation for being fair and thoughtful in their dealings with insurers. For many insurers and their adjusters, Thompson & Bryan is seen as the acceptable face of client claim.

Paul Lawrence has more than 30 years experience in the claims industry and is highly respected by brokers and insurers alike.

John Sims, former CEO at Lorega Limited said: “This is an ideal acquisition for Paul. Thompson & Bryan is highly professional and has a great brand name with brokers and Paul is simply the best in the market; I can only see the business going from strength to strength with Paul at the helm.”

Paul Lawrence said: “This was an opportunity I simply couldn’t turn down. This is a great business and a trusted brand that simply got into some unforeseen financial difficulties. There will need to be some changes to the structure of the business but moving forward the picture is all very positive.

“Our service charter will see us using qualified adjusters, charted accountants and other top professionals as required. I have always put the client and broker first and lived for great service, this will be our ethos. Every loss will be treated as the most important claim we have ever handled regardless of how big or small it might be. I am incredibly excited about this new dawn in the history of such a great company as Thompson & Bryan.’

For further information please contact:
Paul Lawrence
Tel : +44 (0)7941 111920
E-mail : paul-lawrence@thompsonandbryan.com


Notes to Editors

About Thompson and Bryan

J.G.Thompson & Co, the forerunner of Thompson & Bryan Limited, was founded by James Grafton Thompson in 1867. In its steady growth throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the Company gradually expanded from a small office in Nottingham to the international organisation it has become today.

Thompson & Bryan had grown sufficiently to become heavily involved during the Second World War in the assessment and settlement of extensive bomb damage claims under the guidelines of the War Damage Commission. The overspill of work continued until well into the 1950s.

Thompson & Bryan’s versatile and expert services again became in great demand during the 1970s and 1980s in the assessment of bomb damage to property in Northern Ireland, dealing with the Compensation Agency to secure financial settlement on behalf of the applicants who suffered damage.

The Thompson & Bryan group of companies provides an unrivalled 24 hour service operating from seven major cities throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland. In spite of its expansion over the years, the group has never lost sight of the James Grafton Thompson tradition for providing the utmost in professional and personal service.

About Paul Lawrence

Paul has been a claims specialist working on behalf of customers for more than 30 years. He was originally part of the Harris group which later became Harris Balcombe. Paul left Harris Balcombe to set up his own adjusting and advocacy business, Commercial Claims Solutions. Paul deals with losses all over the world and is highly regarded by the broker market for his diligence and the ability to get a fair settlement for the client by working closely and thoughtfully with insurers and their loss adjusters.

Ted Baker v AXA and Others

This case demonstrates the importance of knowing exactly which insurance terms and condition are in place for a particular risk and the importance of brokers placing a client's risk correctly.

The Facts

Ted Baker pursued a claim against AXA asserting that they had cover for a claim under the terms and conditions of their commercial combined insurance policy. First they said that there was cover for the losses under the Theft section of the policy. They then argued that consequential losses were covered under the terms of the Business Interruption section of the policy.

Over a number of years the retailer had been the victim of thefts by one of its employees who acted in collusion with delivery drivers. The retailer asserted that by reason of a standard form theft extension clause, cover was in place for this type of theft.

The claim was resisted by AXA on several counts. They alleged that theft by an employee was not covered under the terms of the policy as a matter of construction and that if "surreptitious theft" by an employee were to be covered by an insurance policy then it would only to be covered under the terms of a fidelity policy.

Other defences were also raised relating to mistake, rectification and estoppel. There were also co-insurers involved and they ran parallel defences but also alleged non-disclosure by the broker of the fact that this was unusual cover and that it ought to have been disclosed by the broker.

The Judgement

Despite 21 witnesses being called, the vast majority by the Defendants, the court held that the plain and simple words used in the theft extension clause meant that non forcible and violent theft by an employee was covered under the terms of the insurance policy and that the retailer was covered for its direct losses. It did not go against business common sense as alleged by the Defendants.

Similarly the Defendants could not allege that market practice was to the effect that this kind of cover was not available. The Defendants had attempted to give such evidence both with lay witnesses and with their expert. The judge found that the words used in the policy could not be displaced by any such allegation.

Similarly the Defendants attempted to argue that the parties were trying to replicate the cover formerly given by the defunct Independent Insurance Company. Again the court held that this could not displace the actual terms and conditions of the policy.

On the basis of the policy terms it was therefore found that Business Interruption loss was similarly covered under the terms of the policy. An exclusion clause based on "fraud and dishonesty" was held not to apply.

The court held that there were no "shared assumptions" and therefore the Defendants plea of estoppel also failed.

The Defendant's allegations of non-disclosure and misrepresentation on the part of the retailer's brokers also failed

Comment

The Judgement demonstrates that an insurance company faces an uphill task in trying to persuade a court that despite what a policy says, the terms did not represent what the parties wanted. In this case the majority of the Defendants' arguments were dismissed "in limine", in effect the Defendants' cases did not get over the first hurdle. Quite simply if the terms and conditions of a policy make it clear what is covered, the court will hold that to be the case.

You can read this case study in full here:

High Court Decisions - Baker v Axa


*We’d like to offer a special thank you to Nichola Evans at Browne & Jacobsen for providing a summary of this legal case study. 

Information flow between parties is critical

Ground Gilbey v Jardine Lloyd Thompson UK Limited [2011]

Over the past few years we have seen a number of important decisions involving the role of insurance brokers and how critical it is that there is a flow of information between the parties. This case emphasises that and the consequences when people get it wrong.

Fact

This claim relates to a fire at Camden Market and was brought by the owner of Camden Market.

A survey of the premises was carried out in 2005 and identified the use of LPG portable heating appliances. The Claimant duly banned their use but stallholders continued to use them. On the renewal of the insurance policy in 2007 the policy contained a new endorsement – a survey condition requiring completion of all risk improvements. The Claimant alleged that this condition was not brought to their attention.

On 9 February 2008 a fire broke out at Camden Market. The owners made a claim under the terms of the insurance policy. The policy condition was raised by the insurers. The owners settled their insurance claim for £3.825M which represented approximately 70% of the claim leaving a shortfall of approximately £1.7M. The Claimant sought to recover the shortfall from their insurance brokers.

Findings

The court found that the brokers had acted in breach of duty in three respects:

• A failure to find a policy allowing the use of portable heaters.
• Failure to give advice on the policy condition.
• A failure to pass on a critical email in relation to the removal of portable heaters to the owners.

The Claimant was able to recover its losses in full and the court would not entertain an allegation that there had been any contributory negligence by the owners before the fire.

Comment

This case again shows the importance of essential information being passed between insureds and insurers and that this duty extends to the parties’ agents. When difficulties emerge in the context of a claim, it is important to investigate every angle, consider the documentation and investigate as to whether all information has been communicated to the parties.

A little risk management goes a long way

We are heading for another bout of poor weather so we thought we’d pull together some tips for you to pass on to your clients to help them avoid unnecessary claims.

There is no doubt icy conditions produce more claims for slips and trips than at any other time of the year so if your clients operate from a premises they need to be vigilant to the potential risks to visitors (and employees) of being injured in icy conditions.

The Issue

Even relatively short bursts of poor weather and low temperatures can produce hazardous conditions underfoot that last for many days, and sometimes weeks after the initial event.

Most commercial buildings have some external areas that are used by employees, deliveries or the general public and building owners or tenants have an obligation under health and safety legislation to keep every pedestrian traffic route within the premises free from substances that may cause someone to slip, trip or fall.

The Solution

If a business operates from a premises they should have a plan to deal with the problem should it arise. Consideration should be given to the following when formulating your plan:

Resources
Businesses should know what manpower and equipment they are likely to have available should bad weather strike. Practically how many staff will be available (usually needed early morning) to clear areas and spread grit? Do they have sufficient equipment readily available on site, including sufficient grit and the means to transport it around the site?

Prioritise
Businesses need to decide which areas should be cleared for the premises to operate safely. Priority should be given to the building’s entrances, including goods and visitor entrances as well as staff entrances. It may be impractical to keep all car parks and areas clear so decide what needs to be done to ensure untreated areas are not used.

Maintain
Everyone in the business should be aware of their responsibilities within the plan. Make sure they have a plan to maintain the areas that have been cleared so that they do not re-freeze over.

Communicate
Employees should be informed of the bad weather plan in advance and be aware of the areas that will be prioritised for clearing so that they know what to expect when they arrive for work. Signs at the entrance to public areas should be used advising visitors of untreated areas. It should be made clear that they use untreated areas at their own risk.

Record
A premises specific risk assessment for operating the site in bad weather should be carried out and recorded.