When a cottage in a rural estate burnt down, insurers admitted liability for the fire and agreed to pay the value of the claim.  However, they put the value at zero. 

They based this on the fact that the cottage was in poor condition, the fact that outline planning permission had been sought and obtained for replacement of the cottage and the fact that some years before there had been suspicion of subsidence damage. They therefore argued that the proper basis of settlement was diminution of market value which they valued at zero. 

We demonstrated that there had been no actual subsidence damage.  We argued that planning permission was merely a business tool to facilitate future decisions and we proved that the estate did not have sufficient resources to be able to contemplate reinstatement at any time around the time of the fire.

Eventually insurers agreed to pay the sum insured of £130,000 less an allowance for wear and tear.