This case study is an anonymised composite based on publicly reported commercial insurance claim patterns. It is not actual Apex client data and does not constitute legal or insurance advice. Names, locations and identifying details have been changed. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.
A 220-cover town-centre Italian restaurant on a busy pedestrian street in a South West city, leasehold premises, turnover £2.4m. Two trading floors with an open kitchen on the ground floor and a quieter dining mezzanine accessed by an open-tread timber staircase. The business holds combined hospitality cover with a £5m PL limit, £10m EL limit, and standard material damage and BI sections.
A 64-year-old customer descending the mezzanine staircase after lunch lost her footing on the third step from the bottom, fell forwards and struck the floor heavily. She sustained a fractured wrist requiring surgical reduction and fixation, a fractured hip requiring partial joint replacement, and significant soft-tissue injuries. She was taken to hospital from the restaurant; ambulance was called within ninety seconds of the fall and arrived within twelve minutes.
The restaurant manager attended to the customer immediately, completed an accident book entry within the hour, took photographs of the staircase and the floor area, retained the CCTV recording covering the area for the previous two hours, and contacted the broker the following morning. The accident book recorded that the customer had reported feeling her foot slip on the step; she had been carrying her coat and a small handbag and was wearing court shoes with a moderate heel. The CCTV showed the customer descending normally for the first half of the staircase, missing her footing on the third step from the bottom and falling forwards. There was no visible debris or spillage on the staircase. There were no other recent incidents on the staircase in the accident book.
Approximately fourteen months later, the restaurant received a letter of claim from solicitors instructed by the customer pleading liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 section 2 — the duty of an occupier to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which she is invited.
The claim was pleaded at approximately £180,000: special damages for treatment, care and rehabilitation £45,000, loss of earnings during a six-month recovery period £12,000, future care and support cost £28,000, and general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity based on the JC Guidelines tariff for a moderately severe wrist and hip injury at £95,000. The pleading alleged that the staircase was unsafe by reference to (a) the absence of a non-slip surface on the timber treads, (b) the absence of a handrail on the open side of the staircase (there was a handrail on the wall side), (c) the absence of contrast nosings on the step edges to assist visibility, and (d) inadequate lighting of the staircase area in the late-afternoon period when the natural light was failing.
A workplace inspection by the claimant’s solicitor’s expert (a chartered building surveyor) supported the pleaded defects. The restaurant’s own response, supported by an expert engaged by the insurer, made the case that the staircase complied with the Building Regulations Approved Document K at the date of construction (the staircase had been replaced as part of a 2014 refit) and that the absence of a handrail on the open side was a design feature permitted under those regulations given the staircase width and the presence of the wall-side handrail.
The combined liability policy responded under the public liability section. Notification was made within twenty-four hours of the incident even though the formal claim did not arrive for fourteen months — this proactive “circumstance” notification ensured that the policy in force at the date of the incident responded, rather than the policy at the date of claim, and complied with section 5 of the Insurance Act 2015 prompt-notification requirements.
The insurer instructed claims-handling specialists with sector expertise and adopted a defended-claim approach. The defence position addressed each pleaded defect: the timber treads complied with Approved Document K and had a surface friction coefficient measured at acceptable levels by the insurer’s expert; the absence of an open-side handrail was permitted by the regulations and the wall-side handrail was substantial and continuous; the contrast nosings point was a recommendation rather than a regulatory requirement at the date of construction (although it would now be best practice under updated Building Regulations); the lighting was measured at the time of incident by the insurer’s expert as compliant with CIBSE recommendations.
The defence position acknowledged the seriousness of the customer’s injuries but contended that the staircase was not unsafe and that the cause of the fall was an unfortunate misstep by a customer carrying items rather than a defect in the premises. After a contested approach to liability over twelve months, the matter went to trial at the Bristol County Court.
The court found in favour of the restaurant on liability, accepting the defence position that the staircase was compliant with the relevant standards at the date of construction and that the cause of the fall was an unfortunate misstep rather than a breach of the OLA 1957 duty. The claim was dismissed with costs awarded to the restaurant on the small-claims track scale (because the claim, although pleaded above the small-claims threshold, was assessed by the court as essentially a quantum-led matter that had not required full multi-track preparation).
The restaurant’s combined policy renewed at the following renewal with no premium increase attributable to the claim — defended claims that succeed at trial typically have negligible impact on renewal rating compared with settled claims, although the matter was disclosed at renewal. The restaurant did, however, voluntarily upgrade the staircase with contrast nosings, additional LED lighting and an open-side handrail extension as part of a wider 2027 refit, on the basis that the cost of these measures was modest against the cost of defending future claims even where successful.
The case is noted as a relatively rare example of a successful defended hospitality slip-and-trip claim — the great majority of such claims settle on a commercial basis before trial because the cost of defence exceeds the likely settlement quantum on a costs-benefit basis. The decision to defend was made jointly by the restaurant and the insurer on the basis that the underlying claim was genuinely not made out and that the defence costs were manageable within the PL section.
Slip-and-trip claims are the most frequent single category of hospitality PL claim and the great majority are commercially settled regardless of underlying merit. First, contemporaneous evidence preservation — accident book, CCTV, photographs, witness statements — is the single most important risk management activity in any hospitality venue and should be embedded in the manager’s incident response protocol. Second, prompt notification to insurer in the form of a “circumstance” notification preserves the right policy as responsive even if the formal claim arrives years later. Third, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 duty is to take “reasonable” care, not to guarantee safety — compliance with Building Regulations at the date of construction is a strong defence position but is not conclusive. Fourth, defending a claim through to trial is sometimes the right commercial decision; it requires alignment between the insured and the insurer and good underlying evidence. Fifth, voluntary upgrades to identified defects after a claim are commercially defensible and should not be treated as an admission of liability on the original claim.
We would have audited the venue’s incident response protocol at the previous renewal and would have ensured the accident book, CCTV retention and post-incident photography routine was embedded. At notification, we would have supported the proactive “circumstance” notification approach and would have ensured the insurer engaged a defendant-side claims handler with restaurant-sector experience. The defended-claim decision was the right one in this matter and the role of the broker is to ensure that the insurer’s commercial appetite for defence is properly tested at the right point.
For the underlying cover, see our Hospitality insurance hub and the corresponding Bristol hospitality city page.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote