Insurance Horsebox Dispute Case Study 

The claimants contended at mediation, they had no choice but to provide a replacement horsebox like for like, as that is what their liability was, the defendants solicitors refused, advising that a much cheaper horsebox could have been sought, the repairs seemed to drag and were possibly inflated, benefitting the claimant with a newer vehicle for longer than was actually required.

It was established at the time of the accident horseboxes were so difficult to come by, the one of a very few found was very expensive to hire and therefore the claimants insurers had no choice but to hire it, at no time did the defendants object to this, during their course of regular communications with the claimant insurance company.

Equally the cheaper horseboxes that the defendants advised that could be sourced were only available some 2-3 years after the accident had occurred and were more promotional costs rather than the true cost.

A whole day of the strengths and weaknesses of each sides case were presented, coupled with the facts, which was the claimant insurance company had paid out, after unravelling each sides watertight case, it was apparent that neither had a watertight case should this go onto litigation , whereby the litigation risk needed to be strongly considered.

Each side agreed to be commercial about this matter, even for the mediation itself both parties had to travel a considerable way to get to the mediator who had arranged for the mediation to be halfway between the two parties, each side bore their own legal fees, the claimants waived the interest and settled for £55,000.