A colleague has drawn an interesting case to my attention today involving an accident claim against an employer for an accident at work. It is a very sad example of how some employers fail to protect their employees' interests.

Our client worked in a garage and the workshop had a "pit" which was used for accessing the underside of vehicles. It had been covered over with boarding, but these boards were rotten and broke when our client stepped on them, causing him to fall into the pit beneath. He had a dislocated fracture of the shoulder and was unable to work for quite some time and lost a lot of income.

The garage owners had failed to look after the safety of their employee by not having properly guarded against such an avoidable risk by using a safe and sturdy cover. Aviva Insurance were the garage's insurance company and they admitted that the garage had been at fault. It was now a matter of negotiating a fair and reasonable sum in compensation for the injuries and financial losses that he had suffered.

Soon afterwards, Aviva contacted us to say that in fact they were not going to be paying a penny. The reason? The insurers had investigated further and found that the garage owners had lied when they had filled in the application form to take out their insurance. They had obtained a joint motor and employers liability policy. Their directors were 3 particular questions that they had answered dishonestly. Firstly, had any of them had any driving convictions? They said no, but in fact the Managing Director had recently completed a driving ban. Secondly, have any of the directors ever been declared bankrupt? They said no, but the same director had actually been declared bankrupt a couple of years earlier. Thirdly, have they been subject of any county court judgements? They answered no, but the truth was that the same man had a judgement against him for nearly £50,000 which he had yet to pay off.

All these questions were crucial to the insurers, as they all help them to assess what the level of risk is to insure the business, and so how high the premium should be. In answering dishonestly, the business owners were guilty of what is called "material non disclosure". In effect, they had misled the insurers and got the policy at a cheap price by giving false information. This means that the insurers could declare the policy to be void. It is as if it never even existed, they can simply return whatever has been paid to them as a premium and just act as if the insurance was never taken out at all.

That leaves an injured claimant having to decide whether to bring a claim against the business, but without an insurance company to foot the bill. The claimant has to be sure that even if they win their claim that they have any chance of actually getting any money as a result. the presence of an insurer takes away that fear of there being no funds to meet the claim.There is no doubt that a Court would agree to grant an order that entitles the injured person to be paid by the garage owners; actually making that happen is another matter altogether. There is already evidence that the Managing Director is not the sort of person to pay what is owing, given that he has an unpaid £50,000 county court judgement outstanding against him. In practical terms, it is hard to see how this claimant can now hope to be compensated. His employers have not only caused him to be injured in the first place, but now they have made things even worse by failing to be properly insured.

In car accident claims, there is a proper system in place to deal with situations where an accident is caused by an uninsured motorist. That prioritises the need to protect and compensate the innocent victim. Here, though, the garage have failed to take valid insurance to protect their employees and yet they will not face any sanctions for that. The person who loses out is the person who most needs help, the one who was injured.