French tax authorities issued a tax penalty for circa €165,000 in respect of a trust for misfiling forms. Various companies were involved, and Brunel’s client (an Accountant firm) had provided advice to some. However, their involvement was vague and the accountants were not directly linked to the potential claimants. This would mean that any claim made by the parties facing the loss would not be directed against the accountant in the first instance.
As such, their insurers initially rejected their notification as a circumstance as being too remote. This had the practical effect of preventing the accountant from changing insurers, as they could otherwise face a claim arising from this situation being uninsured (on the basis that the current insurers had asserted that it was not a valid notification, but a future insurer would be likely to assert that it was a pre-existing and notified matter).
Brunel prepared arguments based on a proper understanding of the factual matrix and the “may give rise” definition of circumstance in the policy wording. After some arguing and a lot of chasing, we managed to get the notification accepted with 2 weeks before the policy expired. We also managed to obtain a reduction in renewal premium from that originally quoted.
Reducing PI Premiums comes easy to us. Met with Property firm. Secured £12,000 premium saving. Halved the excess. Client happy.