The Insured arranged a mailing campaign for heir clients.Labels supplied were inadequately fixed to envelopes and it is claimed that this resulted in a reduced response to the campaign.

£45,000

The Insured undertook a study of a company’s operating methods and indicated ways of increasing overall efficiency.Having implemented the Insured’s proposals, incurring additional costs, the client is alleging no improvements have been realised.

£500,000

A Management Consultant designed a computer system for a client which failed to meet his requirements.

£100,000

A distribution and transport system was designed by the Insured, but it did not meet the client’s requirements.

£75,000

A communications and services system designed by the Insured did not achieve the savings expected by the client.

£50,000

It was alleged that incorrect advice was given to a local authority on the deployment of manpower and resources for a particular task.

£25,000

The Insured gave negligent advice with regard to the design of a quality control system.

£25,000

It was alleged that the Insured mismanaged a client’s nursing home.

£20,000

The Insured prepared a work incentive scheme for their clients.It is alleged the Insured failed to meeting the agreed deadline and increase productivity.

£15,000

It was alleged that rot in the planking of a vessel was not discovered during a survey by the Insured.

£50,000

It was alleged that research to gauge public opinion on a new product was not sufficiently comprehensive, resulting in delays to the product launch.

£55,000

The Insured was alleged to have used the wrong specification when testing certain materials.

£45,000

The Insured failed to advise the Inland Revenue of pension plans for a client within the time limits.

£70,000

The Insured were engaged to carry out regular checks for contamination in a product.They failed to notify their client of a change in their checking procedure and when contamination arose the client could not trace the source.The client has had to recall some of the product and has incurred extra costs in attempting to discover the source of contamination.

£25,000

A vessel designed by the Insured failed to achieve the required performance.

£150,000

The Insured undertook a pre-purchase inspection of a vessel which did not detect a number of faults.

£25,000

It was alleged that patent searches undertaken by the Insured were inadequate.Damages were paid for breach of patent.

£15,000

The claimant’s lease was terminated following a failure to register an application under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

£25,000

It is claimed that information prepared for a research organisation contained an error.As aresult the organisation incurred additional costs in carrying our further research.

£6,000

The Insured failed to conclude negotiations for a rent revision within the time allowed.

£778,000 + Costs

The Insured allegedly failed to notify tenants that the rent dispute would be referred to arbitration.As a result, the revised rent agreed was not effective until a later date and a claim has been made for the shortfall.

£145,000

Advertising literature produced by the insured contained an error which was only discovered after all the copies had been printed.This resulted in a claim for reprinting costs.

£67,000

A translation mistake in a press release resulted in a successful suit against a consultant.

£45,000

It was alleged that the insured failed to provide adequate publicity for an exhibition.

£25,000

The Insured allegedly omitted to amend an insert in a magazine advertisement leading to incorrect details being printed.The client is claiming for loss of profit.

£55,000

The Insured gave advice regarding the use of a particular substance in the manufacture of a product.The substance proved to be unsuitable and the client claimed for production costs and loss of anticipated profits.

£320,000

The Insured agreed to supply software for distribution by the claimants, which was represented as being compatible with most computer systems and with one brand in particular.In fact it was not compatible and because it could not be widely distributed the claimants have lost considerable business opportunities.

£35,000

A man was injured when he fell from scaffolding approved by the Insured.

£50,000 + Costs

Machine guards were inspected and approved by the Insured but an employee suffered an injury to his arm whilst using the machine.

£25,000

It is alleged that the Insured failed to take sufficient action in respect of their client’s claim for personal injuries which is now statute barred.

£750,000

The Insured warranted to shipowners that charterers were credit worthy, but they defaulted on payments.

£15,000

There was a mix-up in the shipment of horses.A mare was sent to the wrong stud and serviced by an inferior stallion.This resulted in a reduction in the value of the mare and a loss on the sale of the foal.

£25,000

A shipment was delivered to the consignee without the Insured obtaining the Bill of Lading.

£20,000

The duty on a consignment increased because of delays in clearing customs by the Insured.

£11,000

It was alleged that incorrect entries were lodged in a record book resulting in overpayment for an animal.

£10,000

The Insured prepared structural drawings for the erection of steelwork.It is alleged that the drawings contained errors and a claim has been brought for costs of alteration and resulting delays in construction.

£110,000