Take control of disputed claims

For insurers

Post-Churchill, courts can order you into ADR and penalise refusal. Engage on your terms instead: you choose the timing, the process, and the platform, with the record to prove it.

Book a 30-minute call

“ADR means losing control.”

The opposite, in practice. You choose the timing, the platform, and the protocol. Every deadline the other side misses is documented automatically.

“Arbitration will increase our indemnity spend.”

Awards track what courts decide. Our arbitrators have judicial experience of deciding exactly these claims in court, and Minster Law’s analysis, reported in Insurance Post, puts the variance between awards and court outcomes at ~1%.

“We’re fast followers. We’ll wait and see.”

By the time you follow, the protocols will have been set by others. Insurers covering about half of UK motor are already signed, shaping the rules you’d inherit.

“Credit hire is too complex for ADR.”

Rate, duration, and need are exactly what the credit hire protocol handles. Arbitrators with judicial experience of these claims decide them in ~4 months instead of ~18–30 months.

~75%

saving on small claims track work, ~70% on fast track. Handling cost, not indemnity.

~85%

less cash tied up in disputed claims.

~4 months

credit hire end to end, against ~18–30 months through court.

Dispute to decision: days, against 40+ weeks to a hearing. End to end: ~4 months, against ~18–30 months through court.

Claims director

Claims off the system, behaviour on the record

Defined windows stop cases drifting
Panel firm behaviour visible and documented
Churchill engagement evidenced automatically

CFO / underwriting

Predictable resolution, predictable reserves

Faster resolution releases reserves sooner
Litigation spend becomes forecastable
Outcomes that track court awards protect indemnity

See whether your strategy is working: across your book, opponent by opponent, and down to where your teams can improve. All of it built from what each side has already disclosed on the claim.

Opponent analysis

Where your offers land against each claimant firm you face: the heads of claim where you consistently offer short and lose, and where your position holds. Built from what the other side has already disclosed.

Offer calibration

Where your offers land against final outcomes, and how well-calibrated your valuations are, claim by claim and in aggregate.

Resolution performance

Referral-to-outcome times per claim category, split by settlement and award, with time-in-stage visibility.

Team performance

Response times and engagement patterns at handler level: where cases wait and where handling can improve, on the same trail that evidences CPR and Churchill engagement.

Delivered as periodic MI reports. Everything in them comes from your own claims as disclosed; platform-wide benchmarks are aggregated and anonymised.

Better customer outcomes.

Variance between arbitration awards and court outcomes, in Minster Law’s analysis. Awards track what courts decide.