Disputed Insurance Claims. Why Action Beats IDR
As an insurance lawyer who works exclusively for policyholders with property damage claims you know what frustrates me!?
AND also means I can help more insureds.
-
When a claim is denied by a claims officer; and
-
I act for a policyholder and contest such a claim both orally and in writing; and
The other side just does…nothing about it. No change.
Do you know why?
It’s psychology not law. They have anchored their position. Saving face means no change.
This means legal proceedings are now required. That is the only thing. ACTION!
Internal dispute resolution is almost always a total waste of time of time here becuase of this attitude.
Commencement of proceedings and saying ‘Nope’ I know we are right and we are going to take action is key.
See, insurers press these positions especially on sub $100k claims because they assume no action will be taken and on larger claims too.
They assume at worst the matter will proceed to AFCA and there are no legal costs consequences. Worse case scenario they will lose and save 6 months interest. Best case scenario they will save paying at all. So why would they pay voluntarily?
For claims that fall within the $100k - $1m category and above at Brockhill & Usherwood Lawyers we will consider these on a ‘no win no fee’ basis. We will run proceedings where the clam is strong. But we need to assess the claim closely and usually get further expert evidence to know more reliably the position.
This article is a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Recent articles
-
Security of Payment Legislation: What’s Changing and How Subcontractors Can Improve Debt Recovery
-
Unqualified Expert Witnesses in Building Claims
A building professional who can write a report and a building professional who can defend one under cross-examination at VCAT are rarely the same person, and the gap between them is costing property owners claims.
-
Suing for Water Damage Under Section 16 Water Act
If water from a neighbouring property has damaged your home or investment property in Victoria, section 16 of the Water Act 1989 gives you a direct path to recovery, but only if you can prove exactly where the flow came from and why it was unreasonable.
-
Gathering Expert Evidence in Property Damage Cases
When a property damage claim moves toward recovery, the tradesperson who fixed the problem and the expert who can prove liability in court are rarely the same person.