We work with our clients to provide insights into their risks via advanced data analytics and monitoring of any trends in claims coming in.
Case Study Example
Between July and August 2017, a Shopping Centre (WA) reported 44 incidents to Proclaim, all relating to travelators. Our team quickly identified this as a potential hazard for our client and we promptly organised a meeting with the Centre Manager. During this discussion we identified that patrons were consistently slipping and falling on one newly installed travellator.
We investigated the construction process of the travelator in question – specifically to identify non-compliance during the installation process. The company that installed the travelator provided us with a Certificate of Compliance confirming that it complied with Australian Standards. Crucially, our investigations revealed that after the travelator was constructed, another contractor “X” was commissioned to apply slip-resistance coating.
In terms of slip-resistance, a R10 rating is required to achieve Building code of Australia compliance because this travelator was installed at a 12 degree incline. Contractor “X” were unable to (or possibly unwilling to) confirm whether they had applied the requisite slip resistance coating. We appointed an independent contractor to conduct a slip test which confirmed that the travellator was slippery in both dry and wet conditions, meaning that the R10 slip rating was not achieved.
We used the results of our investigations to assert that Contractor “X” was in breach of their contractual agreement by failing to apply slip-resistance coating. We then promptly contacted the numerous third party claimants who had sought compensation for this incident and referred them to re-direct their claims to them. To date, there have been no further claims directed at our client.
This case is a demonstration for how our early intervention model succeeded in mitigating risk and preserving brand. Because incidents are reported to us directly, we are able to make our follow up calls right at the outset of an incident – and this allows us the opportunity to act quickly in addressing a potential risk thus leading to a favourable outcome.
QUEENSLAND CLAIMS – under PIPA
Case Study Example
The legislation governing the process of personal injury claims in Queensland is by way of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act (PIPA). As per the PIPA act, once all investigations have been completed, all parties are mandated to participate in a Compulsory Conference. Typically most defendants (or if there is a liability insurer managing the claim) would appoint a solicitor to manage PIPA Claims as they require you to adhere to strict time lines, much like a litigated claim. As our team are all legally qualified, we have the expertise and experience to manage these Claims and represent you in the Compulsory Conference without the need for appointing external legal service providers. We have included below a case study of us independently managing a PIPA claim all the way to a favourable resolution.
In March 2019 a male patron was involved in an altercation with a security contractor, at one of our Client’s premises. A PIPA claim was issued against our Client, together with the security contractor involved. The patron alleged that our Client was negligent for failing to employ a competent security contractor and failure to monitor that these security contractors conducted their roles properly.
We conducted a detailed investigation into the circumstances of the incident. Fortunately there was CCTV footage available which we viewed. The footage indicated that the patron was harassing other customers at the premises and this ultimately led to an altercation with another third party patron. The security contractor was involved in stopping this altercation and escorting the patron off the premises.
Regardless of what the footage showed, our Client was still a respondent to this PIPA claim and we therefore had to prepare to proceed to a Compulsory Conference.
As part of our investigations, we prepared detailed notes from the CCTV footage, took witness statements and reviewed the security contract. Our client had contracted with this security company 2 years prior and were no reports of incidents of this nature. Our Client’s site Manager also met with the security contractor’s head of security monthly to discuss issues that arose.
Based on the investigations, we were of the firm opinion that our client had strong prospects of successfully defending this claim. We prepared our defence on this basis and proceeded to the Compulsory Conference. Even though these claims (and the corresponding Compulsory Conference) ordinarily occurs in Queensland, we are able to participate by way of phoning in from Victoria.
At the Compulsory Conference we argued that the evidence showed that our Client appointed a respectable and competent contractor to undertake security services at their premises. We demonstrated that they frequently met with these contractors and monitored their performance to ensure these contractors were performing their duties in accordance with their contractual agreements. We also cited case law – Stringer & Ors v Westfield Shopping Centre Management as precedent in our Defence. The Stringer case delves into the relationship between discharging duty to contractors. Ultimately, the security contractor made a commercial decision to settle the claim at the Conference. Our Client was ultimately released from the proceedings with a NIL contribution.
This is an example of how our specially trained team can successfully defend your claims. In cases like this we are able to independently manage the claim to a PIPA Compulsory Conference without appointing external legal service providers leading to significant cost savings. (*there is an additional service fee for this which we can provide a separate quote if required).