Change location v

The Difference Between Running Your Own Public Liability Claim & The Retention of Solicitors

JQ is an elderly woman who immigrated to Australia to assist her daughter in the care of her grandchildren. Approximately three years ago, JQ attended Shopping Outlet at Maroubra during a sale of woman’s clothing. At the time, there was a large amount of people around the bra area. As one would expect a lot of bras were being tried and were accumulating on the floor. Equally one would expect that there would be staff on hand to collect any fallen garments and to ensure the place was in a neat and orderly manner.

JQ was in attendance at the store to do general shopping. As she turned the corner to enter the aisle of women’s undergarments, she stepped upon a bra that was on the floor. The wire of the undergarment caused her to slip and fall and sustain serious injury to her left knee.

Following the injury, her daughter, who is an educated person, commenced a claim by way of a claim form with the insurer. The insurer attended to some reasonable treatment expenses, such as physiotherapy and general pharmaceuticals for approximately two years. The injury continued to be a problem for JQ and she was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon. She was informed that nothing could be done for her because of her age and that from time to time fluid would build which would need to be drained.

After being informed this, the insurer made an offer as full and final settlement for the claim in the amount of $15,000.00.

It was only after a general enquiry as to whether this was a suitable amount for the injury sustained by JQ that the family sought out the services of Gerard Malouf and Partners.

Although the Offer was only open for period of 14 days, we immediately communicated with the insurer to ensure that the Offer remained open.

Gerard Malouf and Partners immediately went to the expense of having all of JQ’s clinical history obtained and to have her medically assessed. The assessment concluded that JQ would suffer from a permanent impairment. Because of JQ’s age and the fact that she still had an element of mobility, her loss could have been considered to be only nominal. However, through the experience and expertise of the solicitors at Gerard Malouf and Partners, a claim was put forward to the insurer that the purpose of JQ’s immigrating to Australia was to provide childcare services to her daughter and grandchildren. As a consequence of the injuries, she was unable to do this and her daughter needed to engage childcare services on a paid basis. The initial offer of $15,000.00 was formally rejected and the matter ultimately settled for $75,000.00.

This was an exceptional example of the cost benefit in the use of professionals who practice exclusively in the area of personal injury.

© 2021 
Gerard Malouf & Partners
 — Personal Injury Compensation Lawyers

Website Design by MediaSmiths

Your location is currently: