Return to flip book view
Claims Case Studies
ContentsAgricultural ContractorAgricultural Machinery/Equipment DealerArable FarmCattle FarmDairy FarmEquine BusinessEquine StudFarm EstateFarm ShopHaulage CompanyHoliday Cottage ProprietorLand/Property OwnerLivery StableMixed FarmingPoultry FarmSheep Farm4568101112131415171819212324This document will continue to be updated with more claims case studies, so keeprevisiting to read the latest examples of claims that have been covered by Rural Protect.
Natural energy supplier becomes victimof email interceptionWhen a natural energy supplier becamea victim to fraudsters, which resulted inthem paying over £29,000 into afraudulent account, Rural Protect wasthere to reimburse them.Insured party: Agricultural Contractor –Natural Energy SupplierSection of cover: Company Legal Liability Applicable cover: Third Party Fraud andForgeryCircumstance: Business became a victimof email interception.Legal fees value: £13,908The scenario:The business was sent an invoice of£29,000 via email from their supplierwhich they picked up and went on to payas normal.What happened?Unfortunately, what the business wasunaware of was that the email from thesupplier was intercepted by a hackerbefore it reached them, at which time thebank details within the invoice werealtered, therefore resulting in themhaving paid into a fraudulent account.The business reported the matter to theirbank however no funds were able to berecovered by their bank.The outcome:The business then turned to its RuralProtect policy which reimbursed thebusiness up to the limit of cover that theyhad chosen. Had the business chosen ahigher level of cover and one thatmatched the largest single electronicpayment that could be made from theirbank account, they would have beeninsured for the full amount of their loss.
Agricultural plant hire employeealleges discriminationThe following case demonstrates howRural Protect helped an agriculturalplant hire business before thepreliminary hearing of an employmenttribunal when their employee broughtforward a discrimination claim.Insured party: Agricultural Plant HireSection of cover: Employment PracticesLiabilityApplicable cover: Claims by EmployeesCoverCircumstance: Alleged discrimination byan employee after going on maternityleave.Claim value: £9,441The scenario:The employee made a claim to theemployment tribunal for discrimination.They were alleging that the agriculturalplant hire company breached pregnancyand maternity discrimination, Maternityand Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999,Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and DisabilityDiscrimination Act 1995. They alsoclaimed that the business displayed lessfavourable treatment against them forbeing a part-time worker and also madeunilateral changes to the terms andconditions of their employment and failedto issue a written statement ofemployment particulars.What happened?In this instance, the employer was askedto attend a preliminary hearing, which thetribunal can request if a case involvesdiscrimination**. Through Rural Protect,rradar assisted the insured employer byissuing a response to the claim ahead ofthe preliminary hearing. In the meantime,they successfully negotiated a resolutionwith the employee.The outcome:As things had been resolved betweenboth parties, the employee agreed toreturn to work and withdrew their claimwhich was then dismissed by the tribunal.
Invoice intercepted by a fraudsterThis victim of fraud was able to receivereimbursement from Rural Protect forpart of a payment they made into afraudster’s account, that their bankcould not recover.Insured party: Arable FarmerSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Third Party Fraud andForgeryCircumstance: Invoice intercepted by afraudster.Legal fees value: £10,000The scenario:The insured was interested in purchasing aLand Rover from a dealership in England.They made a visit to the dealership toview the vehicle and during the visit gaveverbal confirmation that they would liketo purchase it.While the insured is still in the dealership, the dealership emailed over the invoice tothe insured. As the insured had seen thevehicle, was happy with it and had agreedto buy it, they made a call to their officeand gave instructions to make a paymentto the bank details provided on theinvoice.What happened?A fraudster scammed the insured byintercepting the invoice and changing thebank details so that the money would bepaid into the scammer’s account.A payment of £49,500 was made to thefraudulent account while the insured wasstill in the dealership. The insured and thedealership realised something was wrongwhen the payment had gone throughfrom the insured’s bank account butnothing had been received by thedealership.The police were informed; they advisedthe insured to contact their bank as soonas possible to try and recover the money.The insured’s bank managed to recover
Invoice intercepted by a fraudster£39,357 with no further sumsforthcoming, which left the insured£10,143 short due to the rest of themoney being unrecoverable.The outcome:The insured submitted a claim under theThird Party Fraud and Forgery section oftheir Rural Protect Policy, seeking to claimthe maximum amount recoverablethrough the policy.The insured was reimbursed up to theirlimit of indemnity of £10,000. At theconclusion of the claim, having receivedtheir claim settlement, the insured onlysuffered a remaining uninsured loss of£142.84.
Helping a family-run farm handle apollution incidentWhen slurry from a farm accidentallyentered a nearby river, the EnvironmentAgency decided to intervene. This casestudy outlines how Rural Protect andrradar provided crucial support to thefarm during this challenging period.Insured party: Cattle and Poultry FarmSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Investigations Costsand Pollution Clean-up CostsCircumstance: A family-run farm isinvestigated by the Environment Agencyafter their slurry pollutes a local river.Legal fees value: £30,000The scenario:The insured farm had two slurry pits,referred to as ‘lagoons,’ which wereconnected by a pipe. Slurry was typicallytransferred between the lagoons via thispipe, a process that usually took 30minutes. However, during one transfer, the slurry was left running forapproximately an hour, causing anoverspill in one lagoon. Upon becoming aware of the issue, theclient immediately stopped the transferand dispatched two tankers to withdrawslurry from the overspilling lagoon.Additionally, a digger was used to createtwo emergency trenches, diverting theslurry flow into a field and away from anearby river. Slurry levels were quicklystabilised in both lagoons. The client conducted two visual checks ofthe river at intervals a few hours apart andobserved no immediate signs ofpollutants. Believing the issue to becontained, the client did not report theincident to the relevant authorities. Later that evening, the EnvironmentAgency contacted the client, reportingthat residents of a village approximately 1km downstream had noticed the river was‘frothing,’ emitting a pungent smell, andshowing signs of water discolouration.
Helping a family-run farm handle apollution incidentWhat happened?The Environment Agency investigated thesite the next day and identified a directpathway of slurry from the farm into theriver. Several fish were allegedly killed bythe resulting pollution.The Environment Agency confirmed its‘intention to invoice’ and recover costs fortheir investigation. They requested theclient attend an interview under caution,which can be a step before prosecution.The client contacted Rural Protect’s Legalpartner rradar who provided:Essential next step advice immediatelyover the phone.Confirmation that rradar’s legalrepresentative would visit the farm toprovide further support.The enlisting of a barrister should thefarm be criminally prosecuted. Thiscan ensure continuity of supportshould the matter reach the courts.rradar’s legal team helped the clientrespond to all the correspondencefrom the Environment Agency andThe outcome:A final decision on whether the farm willbe criminally prosecuted is awaited.Since the incident, the client has:Carried out a slurry risk assessment.Introduced new slurry managementmeasures. This includes installing a600mm bund around one lagoon as anextra protection against overspills.Introduced a timer system to alertwhen slurry transfer has been goingfor the usual 30 minutes.Filled a ditch that sits between thefarm and the river with hay to filterout contaminants from run-off.Applied for planning permission to puta concrete extension to the new bundaround a lagoon.Introduced a natural reed bedbetween the yard and ditch.were able to persuade the agency toaccept a statement under cautioninstead of the client attending aninterview, which rradar’s legal teamhelped prepare and submit.
Fatal accident on a farmyard involving amoving tractorThis case study demonstrates how RuralProtect helped ease stress and financialdamage for the insured directors bypaying their legal costs and HSEintervention fees when they wereprosecuted under Section 2 of theHealth & Safety at Work Act 1974.Insured party: Dairy FarmerSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Wrongful ActsCircumstance: Fatal accident in afarmyard due to a worker falling in frontof a moving tractor.Legal fees value: £43,728The scenario:The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)started investigations as there was abreach of health and safety law at a dairyfarm when a fatal accident occurredinvolving an employee who walked infront of a moving tractor.What happened?A prosecution case was brought forwardunder Section 2 of the Health & Safety atWork Act 1974 and the directors werefaced with a fine of £100,000. The insureddirectors pleaded guilty.The outcome:The insured directors were assistedfinancially by Rural Protect which covered£7,678 worth of prosecution costsincurred by the prosecutor to pursue thematter, £30,000 of court fees, and £6,050of HSE’s Fee for Intervention. With helpfrom rradar’s defence team and financialbacking from Rural Protect, the dairy farmbusiness was able to continue trading.
Buyer alleges horse was sold withdefectsWhen the purchaser of a horse sold byan equine stud business complainedthat the horse was sold to them withanatomic defects, Rural Protect werequick to step in and defend thebusiness, proving that the horse was ingood health at the time of the sale.Insured party: Equine StudSection of cover: Corporate LegalLiabilityApplicable cover: Contractual LiabilityCoverCircumstance: Horse buyer allegesanatomic defects were present prior tosale of horse.Legal fees value: £4,026The scenario:The equine stud business sold a horse tothe interested buyer who later on had toeuthanise the horse due to a medicalissue.What happened?Due to the loss of both their money andthe horse, the buyer sought to bring aclaim against the business, alleging thatthe horse was defective at the time ofpurchase and seeking a refund of thepurchase price plus other losses that theyhave had to bear as a result of the horsebeing euthanised. The buyer alsodemanded the horse’s veterinary reportswhich the business would have had arecord of prior to selling the horse.The outcome:Rural Protect successfully defended thebusiness, proving that the animal was infact in good health around the time of thesame and therefore no compensation wasdue.
Negotiations over firearms licenceHere, we explain the role Rural Protectplayed in representing the insured attheir appeal hearing following arevoked firearms licence case. Business type: Equine StudSection of cover: Personal LiabilityApplicable cover: Claims Against anInsured PersonCircumstance: Defence appeals againstthe decision to refuse firearms renewal.Legal fees value: £13,015The scenario:The policyholder, the defendant in thiscase, failed to comply with firearmsregulations when they didn’t declareinformation relating to a matter that theywere involved in previously, which wascontrary to the conditions of applying fora firearm licence, resulting in the policerefusing to renew their certificate.What happened?Due to the nature of the business, theinsured requires a firearm licence topossess shotguns as they run an equinestud and need to be able to euthaniseanimals in an emergency if they are fatallyinjured. The business also hosts shoot-related events as they have a countryvenue for hire.The outcome:Rural Protect assisted in negotiations withthe police for the certificate to bereinstated. The court’s appeal hearing wasaverted as rradar were able to resolve theissue with successful negotiations,resulting in the individual receiving theirfirearms certificate back.
Criminal investigation into a Breach ofthe Peace allegationHere, we tell you about how an insuredfarm estate was met with aninvestigation when a third party madeallegations of Breach of the Peace,therefore requiring the estate’s RuralProtect policy to step in to help resolvethe matter.Insured party: Farm EstateSection of cover: Personal LiabilityApplicable cover: Claims Against anInsured PersonCircumstance: Breach of the Peaceinvestigation.Legal fees value: £5,653The scenario:The insured farm estate faced aninvestigation into an allegation of aBreach of the Peace coming from a thirdparty, as well as a separate but associatedinvestigation by the police in relation tofitness to hold a firearms licence.What happened?A third party complained to the policeabout noise coming from the farm estate.The estate includes a shooting ground andis a private premise business withindividuals within the business holdingfirearms licences to run sporting shoots.The complaint meant that firearmslicences belonging to those running thebusiness were subject to jeopardy. On topof that, a licence holder was already facingan investigation as to whether they werefit to be entrusted with a firearm.In instances like this, a revocation of bothfirearms and certificates would have adetrimental effect on the business beingable to continue to run.The outcome:Rural Protect defended the matter with asuccessful resolution for the business and,in the end, no action was taken by theauthorities and the individuals retainedtheir firearms certificates.
Farm shop scamHere, we explain the role Rural Protectplayed in helping a victim of fraudrecover funds that were mistakenly paidinto a fraudster’s bank account. Business type: Farm Shop Section of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Third Party Fraud andForgeryCircumstance: The farm shop fell victimto an email interception scam.Claim value: £5,393The scenario:A supplier sent an invoice to the farmshop for payment of their goods, afraudster intercepted the invoice from thesupplier and advised of a change of bankdetails. The fraudster then continued tochase the payment over various emails,purporting to be the supplier every time.What happened?The email chain was handled by twoseparate staff members and neitherrealised that they were continuouslyresponding to a fraudster. A payment of£5,393 was made to the fraudulentaccount details by the two members ofstaff. The business only discovered thatthey had been victim to fraudulent activitywhen the genuine supplier contactedthem chasing for payment on an invoicethat was still outstanding.The outcome:Unfortunately, the farm shop’s bank wasunable to recover the payment that hadbeen made to the wrong accounthowever, Rural Protect was able toreimburse the farm shop the full amountthat was paid as the policyholder wascovered against Third Party Fraud andForgery.
Helping a farm and haulage companyaddress issues with its fleetThis case study sets out how rradar andRural Protect offered vital support to abusiness that applied for another Olicence which triggered a DVSAinvestigation and Traffic Commissionerpublic inquiry due to the companyhaving previously been called to apublic inquiryBusiness type: Farm and HaulageCompany Section of cover: Company legal liabilityand Directors and OfficersApplicable cover: CircumstanceInvestigation Costs Cover and OtherWrongful Acts CoverCircumstance: The cattle farm andhaulage company was investigated by theDVSA and Traffic Commissioner when thebusiness applied to add another vehicle toits O licence.Claim value: £15,000 – the policyholderwas responsible for their excess of £2,500.The scenario:The insured company rears cattle formilking and meat and has contracts tocollect milk from local producers and taketo a depot/processing plant. As haulagecontracts make up the bulk of thebusiness, the business has a vehicleoperator licence (O licence), which isrequired if goods vehicles are used inconnection with a business. The companyhas a transport manager, which is acondition of an O licence and who must bequalified, with a Certificate ofProfessional Competence (CPC)The business applied to the DVSA to addanother vehicle to its O licence, whichtriggered an investigation by the DVSA.Usually, such requests do notautomatically lead to an investigation,however, this business had previouslybeen called to a Traffic Commissionerpublic inquiry and so the DVSA felt aninvestigation was appropriate. DVSAofficers carried out a desktop audit andvisited the site to check specifically onvehicle maintenance.
Helping a farm and haulage companyaddress issues with its fleetFollowing the investigation, the businessand the transport manager were called toattend another Traffic Commissionerpublic inquiry. The Traffic Commissionerhas the power to amend, suspend orrevoke O licences. They can decide thetransport manager is no longer of ‘goodrepute’ and be declared unfit to carry onin the role. What happened?The DVSA found that there was confusionover who had the contracts to maintainvehicles and a lack of record keeping. Theyqueried if onsite facilities were sufficientfor maintenance, had concerns aboutwhether drivers were doing theappropriate checks to ensure they were fitto drive, and saw a lack of evidence thatwheel checks and break testing had beenperformed.Upon receiving a letter from the Office ofthe Traffic Commissioner calling them to apublic inquiry, the insured businesscontacted Rural Protect’s legal partners,rradar, who supported the business by:help gather evidence and informationfor the public inquiry, including awitness statementthe appointment of a barristersupporting the business at the publicinquiry by helping it express remorseand explain what measures it hadtaken to enhance its complianceThe outcome:Since the inquiry, the TrafficCommissioner’s Office has:asked the business to reduce the sizeof its fleet to make it easier for thebusiness to get back on track in termsof complianceagreed to another audit in due course.If this audit proved satisfactory, nofurther action would be taken
Former holiday cottage employee claimsfor disability and sex discriminationHaving Rural Protect meant that aholiday cottage proprietor was able tosettle a claim for a significantly loweramount than the value brought forwardby a former employee who was claimingagainst the insured employer fordisability and sex discrimination.Insured party: Holiday Cottage ProprietorSection of cover: Employment PracticesLiabilityApplicable cover: Claims by EmployeesCoverCircumstance: Former employee claimsfor disability and sex discrimination.Legal fees value: £7,336The scenario:A former housekeeper and cleaner filed acomplaint and claim against a holidayco ttage proprietor for discriminationagainst their disability and sex.What happened?The holiday cottage proprietor did notaccept that the claimant had a disabilityand went on to defend themselves incourt, with help from rradar, as they werecovered by Rural Protect. To hear all ofthe evidence from both parties, a four-dayhearing was fixed for this case.The outcome:Due to the low value of this claim, it wasdetermined that the more economicaloutcome for this case was to consider asettlement rather than proceed to atribunal. The sum of £1,500 (theequivalent of the insured holiday cottageproprietor’s excess) was settled for theclaimant.
Stable landlord pursues tenant foroutstanding rentHaving Rural Protect meant that astable landlord was able to recover allof their losses when a tenant decided tovacate the premises without notice orthe outstanding rent payments.Insured party: Agricultural PropertyLandlordSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: PursuitCircumstance: Landlord needed to pursuethe tenant for outstanding rent.Legal fees value: £3,237The scenario:The insured landlord owned stables whichthey rented out to a tenant. The tenantdecided to vacate the premises before theexpiration of their contract and withoutgiving notice, which meant the landlordwas left with rent that remained unpaid aswell as payments that were due fordilapidation.Although the initial deposit covered someof the amounts that the landlord wasowed, they still wanted to pursue thetenant for the remaining sum.What happened?Rural Protect assisted the insuredlandlord at a small claims court hearingagainst the defendant for non-payment oftheir rent and obtained a sum of £2,000for damages to the stables, plus interest.The outcome:As part of the court judgment, the tenantwas ordered to pay an additional £3,211as a contribution towards the legal costsand court fees that the landlord hadincurred to pursue this matter, whichmeant, with help from Rural Protect’sdefence team, the landlord was able torecover all of their losses.
Settling a legal dispute arising from thesale of an unfit horseThis case study demonstrates how RuralProtect settled a legal dispute byproviding legal defence for a livery thatunknowingly sold an unfit horse andrefused to accept an alleged verbalagreement for its return should therebe an issue. The livery was able to claimlegal expenses through their RuralProtect policy.Insured party: Livery Stable Section of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Contractual LiabilityCoverCircumstance: Rural Protect provided thelegal defence to a livery following theirsale of a horse that was unknowingly notfit for purpose.Legal fees value: £23,225The scenario:A buyer approached the livery to purchaseone of their horses. The livery agreed tothe sale and the horse was sold to thebuyer for £4,000. Additionally, the liveryverbally assured the buyer that the horsecould be returned if needed.What happened?After the purchase, while the horse was inthe buyer’s possession, the buyersuspected something was wrong. A vetconfirmed that the horse had spinal issuesand was unfit for riding. Based on thisdiscovery, the buyer attempted to returnthe horse, but the livery refused, despitetheir alleged prior verbal agreement.This prompted the buyer to file a claimagainst the livery, leading to a legaldispute over the horse’s fitness. The buyeralso sought damages, aiming not only torecover the purchase price, but also tocover additional costs incurred, such asvet bills.The outcome:At the court trial, the judge ruled out thebuyer’s claim for additional damages asthese were not substantiated. The judge
Settling a legal dispute arising from thesale of an unfit horsealso ordered that the buyer return thehorse to the livery in return for the pricethey paid. Rural protect supported theinsured livery with legal defence andcompensated £23,225 in legal costs.
Firearms licence revokedThe following case demonstrates howan insured farmer was assisted andrepresented by Rural Protect in theirappeal process when their firearmslicence was revoked by the police. Insured party: Mixed FarmerSection of cover: Personal Liability Applicable cover: Claims against aninsured personCircumstance: Rural Protect assisted andrepresented an insured farmer in theappeal application against the police’sdecision to revoke their firearms andshotgun licence.Legal fees value: £4,271The scenario:The farmer, who uses their shotgun forbird shoots, euthanasia of injuredlivestock, etc, was due their shotgunlicence renewal. As shotgun licences are renewed annually,if there is a change in the licence holder’scircumstances or information, the policeare in a position to decide that therenewal of that person’s licence is notappropriate, which was the case in thisinstance. What happened?Not having the ability to use the shotgunwould impact the aforementioned tasksfor the farmer, therefore they decided toappeal the police’s decision to revoketheir firearms and shotgun licence.The outcome:Rural Protect represented and assistedthe individual in the appeal applicationand the appeal was successful withconditions.
Settling a financial loss of £4,000 from afraudulent transactionThis case study demonstrates how aninsured business purchased machineryworth £4,000 from a seller on eBay whohad in fact forged their identity tocommit fraud, and reveals the role RuralProtect played in settling the financialloss. Insured party: Mixed FarmerSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Third-Party Fraud &ForgeryCircumstance: The insured businesspurchased £4,000 worth of equipmentfrom a fraudster.Total claim value: £5,439The scenario:The insured business came across a selleron eBay and purchased £4,000 plus VATworth of machinery from them. Allcommunications between buyer and sellerwere carried out outside of eBay and the business made the payment to the sellervia BACS, without the security of eBay’sBuyer Protection.What happened?Later, when the machinery was notdelivered, the business realised that theeBay seller was a fraud and was forgingthe identity and details of anotherbusiness to advertise false products.When the business demandedreimbursement, eBay refused, statingthey could not help as the finaltransaction had not been carried outwithin the safety of their website.The outcome:The business reported this transaction totheir bank and attempted to recover thefunds that way but unfortunately theirbank was unable to help as they hadwillingly transferred the money. Thebusiness then turned to their RuralProtect policy which intervened andhelped the policyholder financially byreimbursing the amount lost.
HSE FFI following an investigation aftera fall from heightThe HSE Fee For Intervention can becostly; this case is an example of howRural Protect helped ease stress andfinancial damage for a poultry farmer bycovering the costs of these feesfollowing an incident in which anemployee fell from a wooden crate atheight.Insured party: Poultry FarmerSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: Investigation CostsCoverCircumstance: An unannounced visit byHSE resulting in a Fee For Interventionfollowing an incident in which a businesspartner sustained serious injury afterfalling from height.Legal fees value: £1,262The scenario:The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)paid an unannounced visit to a poultry farm on three occasions to investigatepotential breaches of health and safetylaw after an employee fell off a woodencrate at height and sustained seriousinjuries.What happened?Following the accident, the business madetheir RIDDOR notification, and thepremises were visited unannounced byHSE. After a further two more inspections,HSE were satisfied that the farm couldhave done nothing more to prevent theaccident.The outcome:The insured business was assistedfinancially by Rural Protect which covered£1,262 Fee For Intervention charged bythe HSE. With help from Rural Protect, thepoultry farm in question were relieved offinancial pressures when the policycovered these fees.
Recovering loss of sheep costs fromdog ownersThis case study illustrates how aninsured business sought compensationafter its sheep were killed by a thirdparty dog and how Rural Protectassisted in tracing the responsible dog’sowner and recovered the costs for thesheep farmer. This demonstrates therole that Rural Protect plays inextracting compensation when a thirdparty is liable and how it helps covercosts to support the policyholder.Insured party: Sheep FarmerSection of cover: Company Legal LiabilityApplicable cover: PursuitCircumstance: The insured businesswished to recover costs for the loss oftheir sheep against a third-party dogowner.Legal fees value: £4,767The scenario:A third party’s dog was not on a lead andconsequently mixed with the farmer’ssheep. The insured business sufferedsignificant losses after their livestockwere worried and injured by the dog,resulting in the death of some of flockvalued at £4,000. The business requiredassistance to help track down the evasiveculprit, the dog owner in this case, topursue compensation for the death oftheir major business assets.What happened?Rural Protect covered the fees for thetracing agency and assisted the police inidentifying the dog owner.The outcome:Once the dog owners were found, RuralProtect agreed a settlement out of courtcovering the value of the sheep and othersundry costs incurred by the policyholder.
Rural Protect and Rural Protect Elements are a trading style of HB Underwriting Agency Ltd which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (No. 914354).Registered Office: The Vines, 29 Market Place, Malton, North Yorkshire, YO17 7LP. Registered in England and Wales (No. 09278745).01653 609090enquiries@hbunderwriting.co.ukwww.ruralprotect.co.ukThe Vines, 29 Market Place, Malton, YO17 7LP