Reply to: Loss of earnings as a contractor detailed in an insurance claim

[lexington_spurs]

good posts TM and incognito.

The total sum in question is around 3500, of which 1200 is the disputed loss of earnings.

A solicitor I spoke to on a non-chargeable 20 min "examination", said that anything under 5k is small-claims territory and "not worth any solicitor's time unless personal injury is added taking the value above 5k". Their advice was straight to small claims; she said that in terms of the amount involved the court wouldn't be concerned that the contract was via the ltd company.

Not doing anything for a day or two while I consider their latest response. The letter does include both "full and final settlement" and "I suggest you bank this cheque on an interim basis."

I'm wondering if the junior claims handler has advised their client that they've settled for the lower amount, and now that it's been escalated, they're just trying to avoid going back to the client for the rest.

[Incognito]

Lexington, before you cash that cheque make absolutely sure that it's truly an interim payment and the word "full and final settlement" aren't anywhere on the accompanying documents.

I'm sure you've checked already, but it's a very easy trick to pull to force a cheap settlement.

An easy way to counter any company pulling a stunt like that is to write back thanking them for the partial settlement that you have received in respect of your claim and you will give them x amount of days to settle the remainder before continuing with proceedings.

[Incognito]

Update:

letter today, they have no excuse for the length of time it has taken their cheque printer to creak into action, but they've sent me their version of the settlement to pay in on an "interim basis".

If I want more than 700 quid of the 1200 I asked for, I have been given their solicitor's address. Compensation is completely hors-taxes as the bad drivers say.

I'd asked them if they'd done any work in the past 8 months to check out my claims independently of what I'd sent them - direct quotes:

"We have a duty to our clients to ensure that all the claims we settle are reasonably incurred."

and then

"it is not our responsibility to obtain documents or information pertaining to the alleged loss"

fck my old boots! the client is going to be happy with them, especially for not settling when the euro was 1:1.

All things considered, I don't get up in the morning to subsidise criminally negligent foreign HGV drivers, or incompetent and unprofessional desk jockeys leeching off the insurance system.

I'm cashing the 700 quid and I've got the dough and the inclination to test them out for the remainder.

Everyone is paying for this sh.t through their premiums - what a pisspot arrangement.

You're going about it the wrong way mate. You shouldn't be claiming anything for loss of income, your limited company should be initiating the action and it should be in the name of the limited company that any court action is taken. The contract is between your company and your client. Because of the HGV driver's negligence, your company's employee was unable to meet some of the predetermined contractual Ts & C's (i.e. the days to be worked) and your company was unable to get someone in at short notice to cover the injured employee (you). Therefore the Trucker (his insurance) is liable for your company's losses.

**IANAL and this information does not constitute any form of legal advice.

[TykeMerc]

Lexington, before you cash that cheque make absolutely sure that it's truly an interim payment and the word "full and final settlement" aren't anywhere on the accompanying documents.

I'm sure you've checked already, but it's a very easy trick to pull to force a cheap settlement.

[lexington_spurs]

Update:

letter today, they have no excuse for the length of time it has taken their cheque printer to creak into action, but they've sent me their version of the settlement to pay in on an "interim basis".

If I want more than 700 quid of the 1200 I asked for, I have been given their solicitor's address. Compensation is completely hors-taxes as the bad drivers say.

I'd asked them if they'd done any work in the past 8 months to check out my claims independently of what I'd sent them - direct quotes:

"We have a duty to our clients to ensure that all the claims we settle are reasonably incurred."

and then

"it is not our responsibility to obtain documents or information pertaining to the alleged loss"

fck my old boots! the client is going to be happy with them, especially for not settling when the euro was 1:1.

All things considered, I don't get up in the morning to subsidise criminally negligent foreign HGV drivers, or incompetent and unprofessional desk jockeys leeching off the insurance system.

I'm cashing the 700 quid and I've got the dough and the inclination to test them out for the remainder.

Everyone is paying for this sh.t through their premiums - what a pisspot arrangement.

[Flopsy]

The insurance payout is not taxable. Mine wasn't.

Accountants (ordinary) don't usually know about insurance payouts. It as a battle and comes down to which "expert witness" wins. There was little case law to go on with contractors.

Insurance companies (in my experience) pay out on how far the litigent is prepared to go (how well resourced etc) and not on the validity of the claim.

I discovered many other people in my position (injured in accidents and not many contractors though) and few were prepared to fight the insurance companies to the end. Some insurance companies will pay smaller claims and then throw all their resources at the big ones. It varies.

When I was badly injured I already had a serious neurological disease and the insurance companies rubbed their hands in glee as they thought I would be an easy game to fob off.

The insurance companies in my case (both of them) paid more in legal and expert witness fees than they did in their payment to me. They would rather do this to discourage people to fight claims.

Wishing you all the very best and good luck. Watch out for people trying to gain entry to your home.

[lexington_spurs]

I was in almost the same point in late 2001 when a speeding motorcycle smashed into me on a zebra crossing.
Hope this helps.

.. thanks, Flopsy. Hope all is well now. Sounds like a living nightmare.

Well let me know how it works out for you. I can't see you getting very far with it not without putting in more time and effort than you lost out on billing.

If the £1200 really means that much to you then go for it. I'd rather just spend the extra time I could be arguing insurance out enjoying myself.

.. fair enough. It's taken them 18 months to get to even asking these questions. It's gone far beyond the point where it's about the money - they are playing the system for all they can so I'd like to blow a few bum notes back in their direction as well. The crash - not accident - was a significant one and on another day would have been fatal. I don't believe in the ambulance chasing industry, and I've given them the chance to settle fairly and pragmatically.

Re the final poster, didn't put VAT on the original schedule but maybe I should do ...

[Sysman]

If the £1200 really means that much to you then go for it. I'd rather just spend the extra time I could be arguing insurance out enjoying myself.

A question: Is such an insurance pay-out taxable, and if so, at what rate?

I have no idea what the answer here is, but an accountant would surely know.

[Sockpuppet]

may betry and make an intelligent point about foreign hgvs? you're getting nowhere with the insurance stuff.

Well let me know how it works out for you. I can't see you getting very far with it not without putting in more time and effort than you lost out on billing.

If the £1200 really means that much to you then go for it. I'd rather just spend the extra time I could be arguing insurance out enjoying myself.

[Flopsy]

I was in almost the same point in late 2001 when a speeding motorcycle smashed into me on a zebra crossing.

Went through 6 years of legal arguments and ended up with a settlement I could live with but was no way near the true cost of what I lost during the accident.

We had the medical arguments over my injuries and the financial argument on exactly how to determine the losses.

I hired a forensic accountant to argue the money side. Obviously the "other side" argued that my losses were not the same as the company losses. The argued that I was not due the monies that my company would ahve made and that my company could not sue them. My forsensic accountant was very good and eventually we won that side. We did not go to court and if that has happened ,the judge would have decided who was right.

Everyone tried to screw me down at every step of the way. My own insurance company wanted me to accept a very small amount. It was a matter of finding the right people to act for me and to learn what to do.

The insurance companies will do anything to stop you progressing with the claim. They will demand many, many records. They asked for our bank statements going back for years - personal and company. The used a fine tooth comb and wrote many letters to try and intimidate us (including tax threats...). They did the same with my medical records and investigated my family. They just kept coming back with more and more extravagent demands.

They hired PI's to keep coming to my home and obtain access through devious means. The videotaped me and photographed me. I was followed, telephoned and visited many times. The police finally put a stop to this.

Have you got any legal expenses cover? I found some under my household insurance and this enabled me to hire a lawyer (of my choice) and then the financial expert I needed. I was also able to get some medical reports this way.

Hope this helps.

[lexington_spurs]

I'd say your not going to get very far with this.

If you lose pay then yes however you could claim that you'd lost a £2 million contract becuase of the accident doesn't meant that you could claim that and reimburse it.

may betry and make an intelligent point about foreign hgvs? you're getting nowhere with the insurance stuff.

[Sockpuppet]

Yes, but this is an insurance claim - Contractor A is the insured party on the policy, not Contractor A Ltd. Business travel was covered. Contractor A can reimburse Contractor A Ltd following the claim.

I'd say your not going to get very far with this.

If you lose pay then yes however you could claim that you'd lost a £2 million contract becuase of the accident doesn't meant that you could claim that and reimburse it.

[TykeMerc]

Well loss adjusters work on the behalf of the insurance company so it's their job to get the injured party to accept as low a settlement figure as they can get away with. If they can bamboozle, bullsh1t or or outright con you into waiving part of your claim then they will do.

[lexington_spurs]

ding - that's the idea.

Contractor A is managing the claim because he is the insured party.

It's not the only bone of contention in the claim - but it's a thorny one and one which pretty much everyone takes a different view on.

Going back to the original crash - it was a pretty big smash up by any standards, and Contractor A is a lucky boy when all's said and done.

These loss adjusters have been total t0ssbiscuits from the outset - even disputing that they should replace the infant seat in the back of a car which was crunched by an artic at 60mph!

[SameOldStory]

But hang on, how can you prove that the employee (contractor A), would have lost this much from 2 days work, just because his employer had won a contract? Wouldn't you need some sort of employment contract detailing this link?

I think the point you are missing is that contractor A is reimbursing his company for it's lost earnings and so is out of pocket