Overview and key points
We live in a world where claims against others are becoming a common occurrence, where people blame someone else when they are injured.
However, for a claim to be upheld, a company or individual has to be found negligent to be liable – and that they did not act in the expected or reasonable manner to ensure the safety of an individual.
Key takeaways
- Ensure you conduct thorough investigations into claims allegations
- Do not underestimate the importance of a proper safety induction
- Keep all your records up to date
Discover what this means in the following claims defensibility in action example.
A claim was made against a Partners& climbing wall client where an individual fell from a bouldering wall (climbing without ropes or a harness), onto the safety matting below.
The allegations in the Letter of Claim from the outset were that the Safety Induction carried out when the claimant first attended the site was not satisfactory and therefore he was not fully advised of the risks or how to fall properly. The claimant therefore felt that the climbing wall centre was responsible for the injuries he sustained.
The team from Kubiq attended the site and completed a detailed investigation. Whilst their attention centred on the induction process (owing to the nature of the allegations), their expertise and experience in claims of this nature meant they anticipated that the allegations could change as the claim progressed.
Kubiq also looked at the suitability of the safety matting that was being used, the inspection and maintenance that was carried out and the route setting and grading. Whilst this resulted in a relatively lengthy investigation, gathering all the relevant information during one meeting was key. The team also spoke to the manufacturers of the safety matting to discuss their testing requirements.
By considering all potential claims avenues at the outset and front-loading the investigation, Kubiq had details of everything that might be questioned at a later date.
The enquiries made by Kubiq determined that that the climbing wall centre’s induction process was more than suitable and liability was denied on this basis, given that the allegations were focused on this particular point.
Sure enough, and as predicted, the claimant’s solicitors then alleged that the safety matting was not adequate. Due to the in-depth investigation carried out by Kubiq, we were able to rebut this additional allegation, and maintain a firm denial.
In response, the claimant’s solicitors subsequently argued that the climbing route was not graded correctly. Again, as this had been explored during the initial investigation, we were able to rebut this allegation.
Eventually, in light of the numerous rebuttals of the allegations made, together with the robust stance supported by clear and definitive evidence, the claimant’s solicitors withdrew the claim.
This forward-thinking and proactive approach to claims investigations from Kubiq means we are always on the front foot, and avoids the need to subsequently need to revert to our clients to collect further information at a later date.
Kubiq brings unique and valuable expertise for our clients to investigate and support liability claims made against insurer client customers, including those made against climbing wall centres.
Successfully defending a claim depends upon having the expertise to anticipate how a claim can evolve and conducting a comprehensive investigation from day one.