Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Re: Northumberland Development Project - Archway On Fire
That's interesting.
So the knock-on is that the insurance company will i) stop them being frivolous about the appeal process and ii) tie the hands of any silent (Russian) benefactor they may have?
As I've stated, from any insurance company's perspective:
This is likely to be subject to a commerical package policy sold via a broker.
It is likely they have fire cover as standard for the building and surrounding land. However as this land is subject of a current CPO insurers are likely to obtain legal advice as to prospects of success of any appeal. If it is deemed likely on the balance of probabilities that Archway would eventually have to move under the CPO process, then it would be arguable that no loss has occurred because of the fire.
The legal onus is on the insured to prove they've suffered a financial loss as a result of an insured event (it isn't enough just to demonstrate that an event occurred, although in 99/100 the two pretty much go together hand-in-hand).
They will likely have cover for stock, machinery etc. Depending on the terms of the CPO, this could arguably be claimed for under the policy as could business interruption.
My guess is however, that the insurance company would seek to force agreement for relocation quickly, as it would minimise its own costs. In this respect, they could hold Archway over a barrel to an extent as I'm sure that the insurance company would deem a quick acceptance of the terms of the CPO and relocation of the business as much preferrable than anything else.
Infact, I would even go so far as the insurer will rule out a liability decision until the CPO process has been completed, even if they did not have any concerns regarding the legitimacy of the fire and any claim.
That's interesting.
So the knock-on is that the insurance company will i) stop them being frivolous about the appeal process and ii) tie the hands of any silent (Russian) benefactor they may have?