One misconception associated with liability claims is that the incident tells you where liability lies. In my experience, that is rarely the case, writes Joel Thornton, Head of Casualty, Executive Loss Adjuster, McLarens

By Joel Thornton, Head of Casualty, Executive Loss Adjuster, McLarens

A person is injured, machinery fails, a product malfunctions, or property is damaged. The immediate cause may appear obvious, but liability is rarely understood by looking at the event in isolation. The real challenge is to look beyond what happened and understand why it happened, identifying the combination of factors, decisions and interactions that shape the outcome.

No single point of failure

There can be a natural tendency to search for a single point of failure. In reality, liability losses are commonly the product of multiple interacting factors. Maintenance practices, operational decisions, contractual arrangements, supervision, communication failures and human actions can all contribute to the outcome. Viewed individually, each may appear insignificant. Together, they can explain how the loss occurred and where responsibility ultimately rests.

Consider a machinery failure. The damaged component may be the obvious focus, but the investigation often extends well beyond the failed part itself.

Maintenance history, servicing activities, manufacturer guidance, operator actions, modifications and the involvement of contractors or suppliers may all be relevant. The key question is not simply what failed, but what circumstances allowed the failure to occur.

The same principle applies across many liability matters. Whether the loss involves construction activities, industrial operations, products, environmental incidents or property damage, the answer is often found in the interaction between people, processes and systems rather than a single triggering event.

The importance of interactions

Understanding those interactions requires more than identifying physical damage. It requires investigation. Evidence must be preserved, records reviewed, witnesses interviewed and technical findings considered alongside contractual and operational realities.

Frequently, the most important conclusions only emerge when seemingly separate strands of evidence are connected.

A maintenance record may take on new significance when considered alongside a witness account; technical findings may need to be understood in the context of contractual responsibilities or operational decisions.

The investigation therefore needs to evolve as the evidence develops, rather than follow a predetermined path.

An investigative mindset

I consider the best practice approach to complex claims is an investigative mindset. It’s crucial for specialists to look beyond the immediate cause of loss, testing different lines of enquiry and bringing together the technical, contractual and human factors that may have influenced the outcome.

Loss adjusters need to work alongside engineers, forensic accountants, technical experts and legal representatives, to build a complete picture and provide insurers with clear, evidence-based findings that support claim strategy, reserve management and recovery decisions.

The focus must always remain the same: understanding not only what happened, but why it happened, and delivering practical outcomes for insurers.

In liability claims, the event is often only the beginning. The real answers are usually found in the interactions that came before it.