BEACON CLAIM EXPERIENCES

Becon strongly believes that Claim is the True Litmus test to judge the efficacy of any Insurace Broker or Insurance Company. Some of the Experiences During our Customer Handling are strong
reasons to why BEACON is an Unrelenting Support for Managing an Effective Insurance Program for your Company

INSURANCE /SUREVEYORS BEACON END

S.No DEPARTMENT LOSS CLAIM AMOUNT
RESPONSE APPROACH RESULT

We have arranged for metrological report & first we proved that

damage was due to inundation not due to rain water damage. By
Deduction of Rain water damage,
the help of metrological report we also proved it as a single event
Road project damaged Multiple excess while treating
1 CAR 125 LAKHS while justifying 72 hrs clause.Presented that Frequent Preventive Claim was settled for full amount.
by rain and flood different consequences,
measures were taken to avoid damage to road & also presented
depreciation of wear & tear.
log book for road repair maintenance of road justifying proper
timley maintenance.

Non paymnet of 85000 Commercial dispute which is Understood the business and analysed the trend before & after
2 CREDIT Euro's by European 85000 EURO Finally 90% of claim was settled
exclusion under policy the loss .
Client
Claims was repudiated by
Based on factuals, Metrological Study, experiences & by quoting We have approached HO of NIC &
Surveyour while stating the reason
several instances, we challeged the surveyors interpretation & had various mettings with GM &
Dome got damaged that damage due to storm with 80
3 FIRE 300 LAKHS explore & enquired the aspect of Storm. We find the concrete DGM & discussed various
due to storm km per hr is not classified as
documents of IMD which established that wind speed with 80 km technicalities & re opened the claim
STORM as per IMD (Indian
pr hr is classified as a storm. and finally claim was settled.
Metrological Deptt.)

We had negotiated with Surveyor on the grounds of pre operative Final Claim was settled for 9.6
Fire in plant led to Surveyor assesed the loss
expense, Technology offset factor, studying of the various Import Crores with 2 On Account Payments
4 FIRE stoppage of 1200 LAKHS estimating underinsurance of
Market distinctive factors & presented actual figures & data to within a span of 6 months from the
production in 2 lines 38.6%
surveyors & brought down Underinsurance to 9% date of Loss

Crankshaft was disallowed by the We have studied the claim & presented the technicals factors that
surveyor while stating the reason as per the recommendation given by OEM reconditioned
Damage to vessel that overhauled reconditioned crankshaft can't be used for long period & needs to replaced with
5 FIRE under construction 110 LAKHS crankshaft is working to class new crankshaft to avoid any critical situation. Also presented that Claim was settled successfully
due to flood satisfaction & underinsurance of there is no clause of underinsurance in this policy & 15.2% is
15.2% was applied on other claim wrongly deducted.
amount.

All Documents were burnt in fire, We have studied the pattern of stocks & guided our client in
Fire in Plant due to
6 FIRE 450 LAKHS there was no substantial base for preparation of documents accordingly & presented & justified the Claim settled for 420 Lakhs
short circuiting
surveyor for loss assessment co-existence of documents in front of Surveyor.
 In the policy document excise was clearly defined & declared in
Stock of 1000 Lakhs the basis of valuation of stocks, we presented the case to
7 FIRE 1000 LAKHS Excise of 120 Lakhs was disputed Claim was settled including Excise
was burnt Insurance company & surveyor for declaration and valuation and
ultimately this 120 Lakhs beside 1000 Lakhs claim was released.

Claim was settled & the final

We studied the claim, and presented the claim on both the assessed net claim amount was
3 Separate policies were taken for
Fire due to static methods of claim settlement i.e. on MV and RIV. We worked out increased by 1 crore. And we
8 FIRE 200 LAKHS 3 different plants & was highly
charge the claim figure on both the method & presented differentiation in convinced surveyor to settle it on
underinsured.
figures. MV instead of RIV to have lesser
impact of under insurance.

-Issues on Capacity Utilisation

- Part of Control Panel was Establishing Trend Claim was under Arbitration and
Loss of Profit following
separated and could not consumed Departmental Contribution finally got settled for 3500 Lakhs
9 FLOP fire in Control Panel of 3500 LAKHS
due to poor work condition and Genesis for Technlogy Upgradation, enables us to establish along with interest amount of 1100
Polymerisation Plant
- poor Sale & Pililing Stock made admissibility of Claim Amount with Surveyor lakhs
LOP Claim NIL

- Delay in placing reinstatement

order by Insurer to the supplier
- Production downtime of 45 Days
Loss of Profit following - Several Round of discussion with Scrubber Supplier to reduce
was not acceptable
fire supply time
- Being Chemical Plant
10 FLOP in one Chemical 300 LAKHS '- Identifying interdependecy and cascading effect of line stoppage Claim was settled successfully
interdependency of plant and
Receiving Tank - to resultant production of chemicals and byproduct was made
resultant loses to other products
Scrubber understood to surveyor
was debated
- being make to order business
Trend could not be established

Damage to POY lines 2000 Lakhs Material Technological obsolescence, under Final claim was settled for 1800
Speed and accurate information enabled in smooth claim
11 FIRE/FLOP few total loss and few Damage / 700 Lakhs insurance and LOP was assessed on Lakhs for Fire and 680 Lakhs for
settlement.
partial loss Loss of Profit output/turnover basis FLOP

2 Vehicles carrying
engines got
overturned due to Surveyor had repudited the claim We could explain and prove that prudent precautions was taken
over loading (it was Finally the claim got settled for Rs.
12 MARINE 1380 LAKHS since damage was caused by by the consignor & it was not in the privy of insured. This fault was
imported consignment 1380 Lakhs.
overloading done at the level of transporter.
and CFR Nhava Sheva
policy was taken by
consignee) after that it
 We collected all relevant documents issued by Insurance co. in
Imported Machine was against of this policy & presented it at HO of Insurance co. We
Claim was repudiated by Surveyor
found damaged on could prove that the stowage is not in the hand of Insured & was
13 MARINE 70 LAKHS by stating the reason that it is Claim got settled for Rs. 52 Lakhs
opening of Container done by the supplier hence it doesn't fall under the exclusion of
because of improper stowage
at Insured Premises improper stowage. And covinced the Insurance Co. to pass 75% of
claim.

We got the dameaged part inspected through the forensic lab to

Claim was repudiated due to latent
prove that it was not the Latent defect.
defect of the damaged part of the Claim got settled in full after it was
14 MBD DG Set Breakdown 80 LAKHS We also got the technical report from the Manufacutes of the DG
DG Set. & stated that it is a internal repudiated by insurance company
Set which supported us while talking to the underwriters and
crack.
Surveyors

We talked to Doctor got a confirmation that for such ailment

Eye surgery following The Vision reduction is Congenital
15 MEDICLAIM 2 LAKHS cannot be stated as congenital in nature and represented the Claim was settled successfully
blurred vision in Nature
same to Insurance company & TPA

Liability resulting out

Several Requirement were raised, We did Liasioning with Overeseas Buyer, helped in preparation of Claim was settled for 4 Lac as
of lamination not
16 PRODUCT LIABILITY 15 LAKHS for each and every Production all claim documents and various rounds of discussions and omission was a joint responsibility
designed in line with
Statges and Quality Checks negotiation were done with Surveyor. of Buyer & Seller
Purchase order

The consignment was sent to

parent company at Germany and Understood the process and nature of claim; guided the insured &
Claim was finally settled for 30000
17 PRODUCT LIABILITY Wrong Labelling 36000 EURO then to their client in Italy; there its parent company to present the claim in right perspective;
Euro
was no chance of survey and negotiated with insurance company at senior level.
document were very limited

There were two incidents of flood

PROJECT Flood loss to road and hence ALOP claim was very critical; Guided insured for PERT & CPM techniques to present the case of
18 280 Lakhs Claim was settled for full amount.
INSURANCE & ALOP toll bridge no of events giving huge ALOP in more feasible manner
deductibles

Above are some of the instances where Beacon made a distinction. With rich experiences of its Team and extensive knowledge, we could go beyond Understanding of Insurers & Surveyors, to
bridge the gap between policy wordings and practical aspects of the Claim.
Apart from above Beacon Upholds the Spirit of "MINIMUM LEAD TIME & MINIMUM LOSS" to ensure Satisfactory Claim Settelement