On a cold January day, a serious workplace accident occurred on a construction site in Staines, a suburban town in Surrey, just on the western edge of London. Among the workers present were Romanian labourers, including the Claimant, who was directly involved in the incident.
Our client, a dairy herdsperson working on a farm, had been provided with onsite accommodation in a poorly maintained and unsafe caravan. The cooking stove was outdated and inadequately serviced, and the gas cylinder, along with the fire, smoke, steam, and gas detectors, were old, incomplete, or entirely non functional.
Commenting on the case, Mr Baba said “All too often we see insurers seeking to argue that the Claimant has been dishonest, when in fact, an honest mistake has been made. We are all human and just because the Claimant had forgotten some of the details of his past history when he saw a medical expert should not be taken as evidence of dishonesty. It is good to have got our assessment of this case right and the client was rewarded with extra damages, penalty interest and indemnity costs, but he should not have been put through the ordeal of going to court. It is time that insurers took a look in the mirror and asked themselves if they have gone too far”.
Commenting on the case, Joanna Mackiewicz said “This is a stunning win for our client, and justification for the stance Levenes took throughout the case in the face of a fierce defence from the Defendant. To have correctly predicted the outcome of the case and then made an offer to settle which matched the assessment of the judge, is particularly satisfying”
The Claimant contacted Levenes Solicitors after his initial solicitors turned down the case on the basis of an alleged letter the Claimant had written to his employer to apologise for the accident and admit fault. After Levenes commenced proceedings, the defendants made an initial offer of £25,875.00 plus £10,000.00 for surgery. A further offer of £97,000 was received and the case was eventually settled for £135,000.00.
Often insurers will suggest that a contractor is self-employed, and no duty is owed to them. On the facts of this case, they were wrong. Secondly, lots of accidents happen in the workplace because corners are cut, unsafe equipment is used or the tools provided are not suitable for the job.
If the claim had not settled, they might well have asked the court to dismiss the client on the basis of dishonesty. We did not consider the client to be dishonest, but it would have been the judge who had to make that decision.
Proceedings were issued as both the Defendants denied responsibility. To aid his recovery our firm funded his treatment. The Defendants initially started with a settlement offer of £50,000.00 which then increased to £100,000.00. We finally agreed on a final settlement of £160,000.00.
As soon as the medical evidence was finalised, the negotiations started. The insurers made “valid offers” and although their last offer was of £250,000.00, our lawyer, Anamaria Nita, managed to negotiate a further increase of £35,000.00.