Karen Brown

Karen specialises in advising insurers on setting a strategy, both from a business perspective and on a case by case basis, for defending vehicle hire and damage claims.

She has 20 years’ civil litigation experience in both pursuing and defending road traffic claims, in both the Sheriff Courts and the Court of Session. She has experience dealing with personal injury claims, employers’ liability, public liability, and consumer law. Over the last 10 years she has chosen to specialise in defending vehicle hire and damage claims. She has experience in dealing with volume claims but also high value and complex hire claims, both with and without the assistance of Counsel. Karen leads a small team that delivers strategy for a variety of insurer clients, tailored to their specific objectives. She also oversees management information (MI) reporting for the team.

Karen leads a small team in the Glasgow office, developing vehicle hire and damage strategy. As well as having her own defender litigated caseload, she oversees the litigation for her dedicated team. She has 20 years’ experience conducting her own procedural hearings and proofs in the Sheriff Courts throughout Scotland. She has assisted many insurers over the years with both technical and practical knowledge of dealing with litigated cases in Scotland, by way of presentations and workshops. She is also a regular speaker at the DAC Beachcroft annual vehicle hire and damage conference.

Relevant experience includes:

• Overseeing a litigated test case on the issue of insurer intervention, and in particular the Court’s view on whether the specific wording of the letter was Copley compliant.
• Overseeing a litigated case that proceeded to debate on the technical issue of enforceability.
• Proceeded to proof on the complex technical argument of whether a hire agreement was enforceable. The claim was successfully defended, no damages were paid and we recovered our court expenses in full.
• Managing policyholders expectations on liability disputes, when the defence is weak. Alternatively proceeding to proof on liability where there are reasonable prospects of success.