How CMLA brings “added value” to a claim
Here are 4 recent cases we have dealt with;
CMLA was appointed by a nationally-known opticians regarding a water damage claim at one of their North London stores.
About a third of the suspended ceiling tiles and carpet tiles were affected. Initially, the insurers were only prepared to pay for the replacement of the damaged tiles. However, we argued that their liability was to replace all the tiles, and our view prevailed.
Our clients suffered a burglary at their home in London N12. The claim mainly concerned jewellery, which exceeded the Valuables limit under the Contents section of the policy. However, after examination of the policy wording we noted another section which in our opinion also covered jewellery. The insurers took the view that this cover did not relate to items stolen from the house. We successfully argued this was not the case, and insurers eventually agreed to accept the jewellery claim under this section of the policy.
We were asked by the owners of six adjoining townhouses (in London SW15) to represent them on a claim involving damage to drains. After correspondence with the various insurers we held site meetings with their loss adjusters, and also had discussions with contractors. After lengthy negotiations with both adjusters and insurers, we obtained a 100% settlement (aside from policy excesses) for each of the householders.
The owner of a large detached house in Morden appointed us following a serious fire. It soon became clear that our client was under-insured on Contents. The loss adjusters (working for insurers) considered the degree of under-insurance was so severe that the claim settlement would have been badly prejudiced. We successfully argued that whilst the Contents cover was low, it was by no means as serious as the adjusters maintained. Consequently, we negotiated a far higher settlement for our client.