Business Interruption (BI) claims present unique challenges for claims managers and insurance professionals, particularly when they arise from complex events like machinery breakdowns.

Quantifying the resulting financial losses and correctly applying intricate policy terms requires careful navigation and expertise. This article examines these complexities using a real-world, anonymized case study involving a tyre recycling plant's significant BI claim following equipment failure.

By examining the steps taken, and the issues encountered, we aim to illustrate the pivotal role played by loss adjusters in managing these claims. The goal is to equip you with practical insights and actionable lessons derived from this case, enabling more effective management of future BI claims by understanding the adjustment process, key policy considerations, and potential pitfalls.

‍

Setting the Scene: Pre-Incident Factors and Risk Landscape

To understand the intricacies of the business interruption claim, let's first establish the operational context. The case centres on a manufacturing company whose primary business involves the innovative recycling of waste tyres. Using a specialized, high-temperature Pyrolysis process, the Insured transforms tyres into marketable products like fuel oil (LPFO), Carbon Black, and scrap wire. 
‍

This sophisticated operation runs continuously, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across multiple production lines housed within two factory buildings on their premises. Given the continuous nature of the Pyrolysis process, the facility's reliance on a stable power supply is paramount; operations depend on both the national grid and on-site backup generators.
‍

Several pre-incident risk factors were inherent in this setup. Firstly, the critical dependency on uninterrupted power for the Pyrolysis reactors meant any significant power fluctuation or outage posed a substantial threat, not just to production continuity but potentially to the machinery itself due to thermal stress. 
‍

Secondly, while the plant operated multiple reactor units, their interconnectedness wasn't fully apparent until the incident occurred. The subsequent inability to operate remaining units independently revealed a vulnerability that might not have been obvious from a simple count of production lines, highlighting a deeper operational dependency.
‍

The Business Interruption policy in place provided cover for Gross Profit, Wages/Salaries, and essential Auditor's Fees incurred in claim preparation. Crucially, the policy incorporated specific clauses that would later prove significant during the adjustment, including a "Departmental Clause" (recognizing different operational segments) and options for how the loss of Gross Profit could be calculated.
‍

Lesson for Claims Managers

This background underscores the importance for claims professionals and underwriters to look beyond surface details during risk assessment. 
‍

Understanding the operational reality is vital. How resilient is the power supply, including backup systems? Are production units truly independent, or does a failure in one impact others? Probing these aspects during underwriting or renewal discussions can identify hidden dependencies and ensure policy structure and sums insured accurately reflect the potential BI exposure, preventing surprises when a claim occurs.

‍

The Incident & Immediate Aftermath

The trigger for the business interruption was an abrupt power outage originating from the national grid, which critically halted the continuous heating process within the Insured's Pyrolysis reactors. While power was restored using on-site generators after approximately 45 minutes, the disruption had already set the stage for failure. Shortly after the restart sequence began, operators observed smoke and flames emerging from Reactor A. Prompt action by the workforce using fire extinguishers and hydrant systems contained the fire.
‍

However, the damage was done. An initial inspection of Reactor A by the Insured’s own engineering team revealed significant swelling and cracks within the reactor chamber, likely caused by the thermal shock from the sudden stoppage and restart. Several days later, abnormal vibrations were detected during the operation of Reactor B. 
‍

A subsequent inspection uncovered similar damage – bulging and cracks – rendering this second reactor unusable as well. Compounding the problem, Reactor C, although seemingly undamaged by the initial event, could not be operated in isolation due to process requirements. 
‍

This unforeseen dependency resulted in a complete cessation of production at the tyre recycling plant. Facing a complex technical failure, the Insured consulted the overseas equipment manufacturer remotely. Based on the descriptions and findings, the manufacturer recommended that both Reactors A and B would need replacement.
‍

Lesson for Claims Managers (Initial Response)

The sequence of events – from the power outage to the cascading discovery of damage – highlights the challenges in assessing the full scope of loss immediately after an incident involving specialized equipment. While the Insured's initial actions (firefighting, internal inspection) were appropriate, the complexity required external expertise. 
‍

This underscores the need for claims managers to anticipate and facilitate the engagement of necessary experts (like original equipment manufacturers, specialist engineers, and loss adjusters) early in the process. Early expert involvement is crucial not only to accurately validate the cause and extent of the physical damage, but also to begin assessing the likely duration and scope of the resulting business interruption.

The Adjustment Process: The Loss Adjuster's Role in Action

Following the incident, the appointed Loss Adjuster embarked on a methodical process to investigate the claim and quantify the loss according to the policy terms. Their initial steps involved verifying the circumstances surrounding the machinery breakdown, confirming the link to the Material Damage event (the power surge and subsequent reactor failures), and establishing the period of production stoppage. 
‍

Recognizing the financial complexity, the Adjuster engaged specialist consulting Forensic Accountants to independently review the Insured's financial records and assist in calculating the loss.
‍

A critical aspect of the Adjuster's role involved interpreting and applying specific policy clauses to the unique circumstances of the claim:‍

‍- Calculating Gross Profit Loss: The policy offered flexibility, allowing the loss calculation to be based on either "Turnover" or "Output." The Insured opted for the "Output" basis (the sale value of goods manufactured). The Adjuster meticulously calculated the shortfall in production quantity by comparing projected output (based on pre-incident performance) with the actual output during the interruption period.
‍
‍
They verified the average selling price per unit from recent financial data and applied this to the quantity shortfall to determine the total value of lost production. A crucial step was calculating the Rate of Gross Profit (determined to be 11% in this case) based on the Insured's audited accounts, ensuring only relevant costs (and excluding uninsured working expenses like raw materials) were factored in, strictly adhering to the policy definition. Applying this 11% rate to the value of the lost production yielded the Gross Profit loss figure.

- Addressing Wages: The policy included a "Departmental Clause," which became significant because the Insured operated distinct business segments (Tyre-Oil, Carbon Black, etc.) with ascertainable trading results. The Adjuster applied this clause by apportioning the total Sum Insured for Wages (NGN 30M) based on the company's own allocation of expenses across departments. As the Tyre-Oil department accounted for 26% of expenses, only 26% of the NGN 30M Wages Sum Insured was initially applicable to the loss in that department. This precise application highlights how policy structuring directly impacts claim calculations, even before other factors like underinsurance are considered.

- Auditor's Fees: Costs reasonably incurred by the Insured for producing and certifying details required by the Adjuster were covered under the Professional Accountants' Clause, up to the policy sub-limit of NGN 1.5M. The Adjuster reviewed and allowed these fees within the policy limits.

- The Crucial Underinsurance Check (Adequacy): A pivotal task for the Adjuster was assessing the adequacy of the sums insured against the values at risk. For Gross Profit, the calculation confirmed the cover was adequate. However, a comparison of the total annual wage roll (approx. NGN 140M) against the specific Sum Insured for Wages (NGN 30M) revealed substantial underinsurance – the Insured only had cover for about 21.35% of their actual wage costs, meaning they were approximately 78.65% underinsured for this item. Consequently, the principle of average was applied strictly to the adjusted departmental wages claim, significantly reducing the payable amount for this portion of the loss.

- Final Adjustments & Settlement: After calculating the adjusted losses for Gross Profit, Wages (post-average), and Auditor's Fees, the Adjuster applied the policy excess (the higher of 10% of the adjusted loss or a fixed minimum). This resulted in a final recommended settlement figure of approximately NGN 144.5M – substantially less than the NGN 519M initially claimed by the Insured. The Adjuster also calculated the apportionment of this settlement among the co-insurers involved.

‍
Lessons for Claims Managers (Adjustment Phase)

- Policy Precision is Paramount: The Adjuster's detailed work demonstrates that precise policy wording (Output vs. Turnover, Gross Profit definition, Departmental Clause) and its correct, objective application are fundamental to reaching a fair and accurate settlement. Claims managers must possess or have access to this profound understanding of policy nuances.

- Underinsurance Has Real Consequences: This case is a stark reminder of the severe impact of underinsurance. The application of average to the wages claim dramatically reduced the payout. Claims managers play a role in managing Insureds' expectations when underinsurance is identified and should feed such findings back to underwriting and breaking colleagues.
‍

- Leverage Specialist Expertise: Complex BI claims often necessitate specialist input. The Adjuster's effective use of forensic accountants for objective financial analysis was crucial here. Claims managers should readily identify the need for and facilitate the engagement of such experts.

- Transparency Builds Trust: Even when the outcome differs significantly from the initial claim amount, clear communication outlining the calculation steps and referencing specific policy clauses, as demonstrated by the Adjuster's process, is essential for maintaining transparency and managing the claims journey professionally.

‍

Strategic Takeaways for Effective BI Claims Management

The analysis of this complex machinery breakdown claim offers several crucial strategic takeaways for claims managers aiming to navigate Business Interruption risks more effectively:

- Champion Proactive Sum Insured Reviews: The severe impact of the wages under insurance in this case cannot be overstated; it directly and significantly reduced the final payable claim amount. Claims managers should actively encourage (often via broker partners) policyholders to conduct regular, realistic reviews of their declared Gross Profit and, particularly, wage roll figures against their current financial reality. This isn't just an underwriting issue; it prevents major expectation gaps and disputes during claims.

- Deepen Understanding of Operational Dependencies: The case revealed that simply having multiple production units doesn't guarantee resilience if they are operationally interdependent. Claims managers benefit from looking beyond the asset list to understand how a business functions. Knowing these dependencies helps in evaluating the potential scope and duration of an interruption more accurately from the outset.

- Ensure Clarity on Policy Basis and Clauses: Ambiguity kills certainty. Whether the loss is calculated on Turnover or Output, how Gross Profit is defined (especially concerning uninsured working expenses), and how clauses like the Departmental Clause apply can drastically alter claim outcomes. While primarily set at policy inception, claims managers must be adept at interpreting and explaining the practical application of these terms during the claim process.

- Manage Expectations Through Transparent Communication: As seen in this case, the gap between the initial claim amount and the adjusted settlement can be substantial due to factors like underinsurance or specific policy applications. Early, clear communication based on the adjuster's factual findings and policy analysis is vital for managing the insured's expectations and fostering a smoother resolution.

- Leverage Loss Adjuster Expertise Holistically: Recognize the loss adjuster not merely as an investigator but as a key technical resource. Their expertise in policy interpretation, loss quantification, coordinating other specialists (like forensic accountants), and objective assessment is invaluable in complex BI scenarios. Trusting and effectively utilizing this expertise facilitates fair and efficient claims handling.
‍

Ultimately, the insights from this case highlight the interconnectedness of underwriting, policy wording, and claims management. Findings from claims adjustments, particularly around adequacy of sums insured or revealed operational vulnerabilities, should ideally feed back into the underwriting and broking process to improve future risk assessment and client advice.

Conclusion

This case study of a business interruption claim at a tyre recycling plant serves as a powerful illustration of the complexities inherent in managing significant BI losses, particularly those triggered by machinery breakdown. 
‍

We've seen how the loss adjuster played a critical, multifaceted role – not just investigating the initial event but meticulously dissecting the financial impact, navigating intricate policy clauses like the Departmental Clause and Output basis, managing expert input from forensic accountants, and rigorously applying conditions such as underinsurance (average). 
‍

The substantial difference between the initial claim value and the final adjusted settlement starkly underscores how crucial accurate sums insured, and precise policy interpretation are to the ultimate outcome.
‍

For claims managers and insurance professionals, the lessons derived from this case are clear and actionable. Proactively understanding operational risks beyond the surface, championing adequate sums insured (especially for elements like wages), ensuring clarity in policy wording before a loss occurs, and effectively leveraging the technical expertise of loss adjusters are not just best practices – they are essential components of effective BI claims management. 

By internalizing these insights, professionals can navigate future business interruption claims with greater efficiency, fairness, and transparency, ultimately mitigating financial uncertainty for both insurers and their clients.