A former employer closing does not automatically end a workplace injury claim. The business may have stopped trading while the legal company still exists, entered an insolvency process, changed its name or been dissolved. Those situations require different steps. Relevant employers' liability insurance may also remain important even though the workplace, workforce or trading name has disappeared.
The first task is to identify the legal employer and its current status, then decide how a viable claim could be pursued and funded. That is different from simply searching for an old insurer. Insurance tracing is one part of the investigation; liability, medical causation, limitation and the correct procedural route still need attention.
This guide concerns civil injury claims in England and Wales. It includes an employer tracing worksheet focused on company identity, closure, successor businesses and surviving records. It can support an enquiry about workplace accident claims, without promising that an insurer will be found or that a closed business leaves an enforceable route to compensation in every case.
Company identity: what exactly has closed?
Separate the trading name from the legal employer
A sign above the workplace may display a brand, franchise or group name rather than the legal entity that employed you. Begin with contracts, payslips, a P60 or P45, pension correspondence and other records from the relevant period. Compare names, addresses and any company number. A slightly different name is not necessarily a minor typographical difference; it may identify a different business.
The government service for company information explains the public records available through Companies House. Company numbers and filing histories can help distinguish an entity from another business using a similar name. Public records are a starting point, not proof that every filed statement is correct or that the company shown was necessarily your employer.
If the business was a sole trader or partnership, a company-register search may not resolve its identity. A sole trader stopping work is not the same event as a limited company being dissolved. Partnership arrangements may raise different questions about the people and liabilities involved. Tell your solicitor what you actually know rather than assuming every business has a Companies House number.
Classify the apparent closure before choosing a route
“Closed” can mean the site shut but the company continues elsewhere. It can mean a business sold its assets, a company became dormant, an insolvency practitioner took control or the company ceased to exist following dissolution. A social-media announcement or locked building does not distinguish these possibilities. Record the evidence behind the description and obtain a current official status check.
An active company may have little money or no current trading activity; active status is not a solvency certificate. A dissolved company may have had relevant insurance before dissolution; dissolved status does not itself prove that no recovery route exists. Keep legal existence, financial position and insurance as separate questions so that one search result is not asked to answer all three.
A status can also change while enquiries continue. Record the date of each search and any pending strike-off or insolvency event. If proceedings are being considered, your solicitor needs current information about the intended defendant and any procedural restrictions. An old screenshot may be useful history but should not be relied on indefinitely as evidence of present status.
Build an employer timeline
List when you started and stopped working, any name changes, transfers, site moves and changes to payroll details. Add the injury date or alleged exposure period separately. The company employing you during the relevant work may differ from the entity named on your final payslip. Long-term employees can understandably remember one continuous business while the legal arrangements changed several times.
Use documents to anchor dates without treating them as infallible. A uniform logo may remain unchanged after a transfer, and a payroll processor's name may appear without being the employer. If documents conflict, preserve both and identify the question. Do not choose the most familiar name and discard the rest to simplify the account.
For a developing occupational condition, the timeline may span several employers or sites. Each relevant period should be described accurately, including the work and exposure alleged. The fact that one employer has closed does not justify attributing all exposure to another that still exists. Medical and legal advice may be needed to determine which periods are material and how responsibility could be assessed.
Closure, insolvency and dissolution are different problems
A business that has stopped trading may still be sued
If the legal entity continues to exist, it may remain a potential defendant even though its shop, factory or office has closed. The correct address, service arrangements and insurance position require checking. Do not assume that an unanswered letter to the old premises proves the company cannot be contacted or that leaving papers at an abandoned site constitutes valid service.
A change of company name does not necessarily create a new legal person. The company number and history can help establish continuity. In contrast, a different company using the same trading name may be entirely separate. Those distinctions can affect whom to notify and where to seek records. A solicitor should verify identity before issuing proceedings, especially where a deadline is approaching.
Financial viability still matters. A legal claim may be arguable but difficult to recover if there are no assets or responsive insurance. An adviser should discuss both the merits and realistic recovery prospects. It would be misleading to promise payment merely because the company remains registered, just as it would be premature to dismiss the case solely because trading has ended.
Insolvency introduces an additional procedural layer
Administration, liquidation and other insolvency processes have different effects. An insolvency practitioner may hold records, receive notifications and provide information about the company's position. Their appointment does not mean they are personally responsible for the earlier injury. Record their official capacity and contact details, and keep correspondence about the process separate from the evidence of the accident itself.
Some insolvency situations involve restrictions on starting or continuing proceedings, requiring consent or court permission. The details depend on the process and proposed route. Do not assume that an ordinary claim form can be issued and pursued in exactly the same way without checking. Your solicitor should coordinate limitation, any necessary permission and insurance enquiries rather than address them in isolation.
Registering a claim in an insolvency process is not necessarily equivalent to obtaining compensation from insurance or protecting the civil limitation period. A proof of debt, insurer notification and court proceedings perform different functions. Keep any forms and acknowledgements and ask what each step achieves. The correct strategy may involve more than one process, with distinct dates and responsible people.
Dissolution may require a different defendant or restoration
A dissolved company no longer exists as an ordinary legal person. That can create a procedural obstacle, but it does not automatically extinguish every potential recovery route. Depending on the insurance and statutory conditions, a claim may be possible directly against an insurer. In other circumstances, restoring the company to the register may need consideration.
Do not issue against a guessed successor or former director simply because the original company has disappeared. A director is not automatically personally liable for a company's injury liabilities. Another party may have its own relevant liability, but that must be supported by facts and law. The disappearance of one defendant does not create a substitute cause of action against the nearest available person.
Specialist procedural advice is particularly valuable here. The proposed claim, company history, insurance policy and relevant dates must be considered together. The safest initial step is a coherent evidence file and timely advice, not an attempt to use a company-restoration form without first asking whether restoration is necessary or whether a more appropriate route exists.
Historic insurers: coverage can outlast the business
Identify the relevant period and insured entity
Employers' liability insurance may respond to a qualifying liability arising from the relevant employment even after trading ends. The policy, insured entity, dates and terms need examination. An insurer named on a certificate from another year may be a useful lead without necessarily covering the incident. A current insurer for a successor business may have no connection to the earlier liability.
The Employers' Liability Tracing Office information for individuals describes its database as a resource for locating employers' liability insurance. A search can help identify a potential insurer, but a match is not an admission of liability or confirmation that the particular claim is covered. The result must be connected to the correct employer and relevant period.
For detailed research methods, see finding insurance for an employer that no longer exists. This article concentrates on what closure means for case handling after identity and potential insurance are investigated: who can be pursued, whether a procedural step is required and how surviving evidence can support the underlying claim.
A negative search is a finding with limits
A failed initial search does not necessarily prove that the employer was uninsured. Names may be incomplete, records may use an earlier identity, or further enquiries may be needed. Equally, it would be wrong to promise that persistence will always uncover a policy. Record what was searched, when and with which details so the adviser can assess sensible next steps without repeating the same enquiry blindly.
The employer's legal duty to insure, where applicable, is different from proof that it actually had responsive cover. Some arrangements and exceptions require consideration, and records can be incomplete. A claim's practical prospects may depend heavily on insurance or assets. Discuss the cost and likely value of further tracing before assuming that unlimited investigation is proportionate.
If an insurer is identified, preserve the exact response. “We are investigating whether this policy applies” is not the same as accepting indemnity, and accepting cover is not the same as admitting negligence. A claims handler may ask for further information about employment and exposure dates. Answer accurately, including uncertainty, rather than adjusting dates to fit a policy period.
Direct action against an insurer: a route with conditions
The government explanation of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 describes a route allowing proceedings directly against an insurer in qualifying circumstances, avoiding the need to restore a dissolved company merely to establish the insured liability first. Whether that route applies depends on the statutory conditions, relevant dates and insurance position.
This is not a rule that every claimant can sue any insurer associated with a closed employer. The claimant must still establish the insured's liability and the insurer's obligation under the policy. Coverage disputes, policy terms and transitional issues can be important. A solicitor should identify the correct legislation and parties before choosing the route, rather than treating the Act's title as a guarantee of payment.
The practical advantage may be procedural efficiency, not a lower standard of proof. Evidence about the accident, breach, injury and loss remains necessary. The fact that the employer cannot provide a witness does not automatically establish the claimant's version. Equally, missing employer records do not necessarily make the claim impossible if reliable alternatives exist.
Keep company-status evidence and policy correspondence together for the adviser assessing this route. A date of dissolution, an insolvency event and the date of liability may have different legal significance. Do not collapse them into one “closure date”. Accurate chronology is especially important where events span changes in the legislation or where the policy covers a long period of alleged exposure.
Restoration: distinguish its deadline from the injury deadline
The Companies House restoration guidance explains court restoration and administrative restoration as different routes. A person with a potential legal claim may be able to seek a court order. The guidance states that the usual six-year application limit does not apply where the application relates to a personal injury claim.
That statement concerns restoration, not an unlimited period to bring the underlying injury proceedings. A claimant must not read “no time limit to apply” as meaning the injury claim can be started whenever convenient. Limitation for the substantive claim, any relevant court directions and the procedural strategy need separate advice. Restoration is not a casual substitute for protecting a deadline promptly.
Restoration also does not prove liability, identify insurance or create money in the company's accounts. It addresses legal existence for the relevant purpose. Whether it is worthwhile depends on the intended claim and recovery route. Before incurring costs, ask why restoration is necessary, whether a direct insurer route is available and what additional steps and expenses would follow.
A court application may require evidence, service and consideration of other interested parties. This article is not a filing checklist, and the proper process can depend on where the company was registered. A company incorporated in Scotland or Northern Ireland raises different procedural considerations even if some work occurred in England. Obtain advice that addresses both the injury jurisdiction and the company history.
Successor businesses: continuity of trade is not enough
A new owner may have bought assets rather than the company
A business sale can take different forms. A sale of shares may leave the same company in existence under new ownership. An asset sale may move premises, equipment or a brand to another legal entity. The fact that the same managers, products or website remain does not establish which transaction occurred or whether the relevant liability transferred.
Record what you were told at the time and preserve transfer letters, contract changes and payroll records. Do not infer legal continuity solely from a familiar logo. A buyer may hold useful historical records without being liable for the earlier injury. Conversely, a transfer may have consequences that require detailed employment and corporate-law analysis. The adviser needs the documents rather than a broad description of a takeover.
Ask separate questions: who employed you when the relevant event or exposure occurred, who currently holds records, and who may now bear the relevant liability? The answers may differ. A request for records should not inadvertently state that the recipient is definitely the defendant before that has been established. Clear language can preserve cooperation while the legal position is investigated.
A group company is not automatically interchangeable
Companies within a group can have similar names and shared offices, but they remain distinct legal entities unless a relevant legal basis says otherwise. A parent company's resources do not automatically make it responsible for a subsidiary's liabilities. There may be circumstances supporting a separate duty, but that requires specific facts rather than the mere existence of a group relationship.
Identify who issued instructions, controlled the workplace and supplied equipment, as well as the contractual employer. Those facts may reveal another party with its own potential responsibility. The claim should not add organisations solely because they still exist or appear financially stronger. A solicitor must assess the duty and causal allegation against each proposed defendant.
If correspondence is handled centrally for several entities, retain the full letterhead and signature information. A response from a group office may be administrative rather than an admission that the parent is the employer. Ask for clarification where necessary. Precise identity work at the beginning can avoid later amendment, service and limitation problems.
Available records: rebuild the case without the old office
Your own records can establish more than employment
Contracts, payslips and tax documents can support identity and dates, while messages, photographs and diaries may describe work and the incident. Medical records can provide contemporaneous histories. Keep originals and label later recollections. A document's age does not make it worthless, but faded copies, incomplete chains and uncertain dates should be acknowledged.
A personal account should explain the work in concrete terms: task, equipment, location, instruction and alleged hazard. “The company was unsafe” is difficult to test after closure. A precise description of a missing barrier, failed repair request or repeated exposure can guide witness and record enquiries. Include facts that may challenge the claim as well as those that support it.
If the employer never recorded the incident, the guide to your employer not recording the accident explains alternative evidence. Closure and a missing accident book are separate difficulties. A later account should not be backdated or presented as a recovered original, even if it accurately reflects what you remember reporting at the time.
Identify likely custodians rather than assuming everything was destroyed
An insolvency practitioner, insurer, broker, archive provider, occupational health service or successor business may hold particular records. Each may have only part of the history. Ask targeted questions about the relevant period and document category. Do not assume that a liquidator inherited every personnel or safety file or that a new occupier of the premises controls the old employer's records.
Former directors and managers may know where records went without retaining them personally. A factual, respectful enquiry can be useful, but avoid demands for confidential files or accusations based on closure. A solicitor can decide how to approach witnesses and custodians properly. Unauthorised access to old email accounts or shared drives is not justified by the need to build a claim.
Public records may document insolvency, corporate changes or an enforcement outcome, but they rarely replace detailed evidence of the accident. Treat them as leads and context. A report about a different incident at the same company may have limited relevance. Do not use a public prosecution as proof that the employer was negligent in every later or earlier event.
Witness memory needs careful boundaries
Former colleagues can describe tasks, equipment, reporting practices or the incident itself. Ask what each person remembers independently and how they know it. Someone who heard about the accident later should not be described as an eyewitness. A person who worked on the same machine in another year may provide context without proving its condition on the relevant day.
Do not circulate a shared draft for everyone to sign. Closure can make witnesses eager to help a former colleague, but the value lies in accurate independent recollection. Record contact details with permission and let the legal adviser consider formal statements. Differences in memory should be preserved and assessed rather than smoothed away through group discussion.
Where a witness has died, moved or cannot be found, tell the adviser what attempts have been made. Other records may address the same question, or the missing evidence may limit the case. It is better to identify the gap early than promise that someone will confirm an account when they have not been contacted or do not remember the relevant event.
Employer tracing worksheet
This worksheet organises the identity and procedural questions. It complements, rather than replaces, a dedicated insurer search. Keep dates and sources for each entry, and distinguish confirmed information from a lead.
| Question | Information to record | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Legal employer | Exact name, number if applicable and business form | Identifies the potential liable person |
| Employment period | Start, finish, transfers and payroll changes | Connects the employer to the relevant work |
| Injury or exposure | Incident date or supported exposure periods | Helps assess liability, insurance and limitation |
| Trading history | Names, sites, sales and changes of ownership | Separates commercial continuity from legal identity |
| Current status | Active, dormant, insolvency process or dissolved | Guides the procedural enquiry |
| Status dates | Insolvency appointment, strike-off and dissolution | Prevents reliance on one vague closure date |
| Officeholder | Practitioner identity and official capacity | Identifies a possible procedural contact and custodian |
| Insurance lead | Insurer, policy reference, period and response | Supports coverage investigation without assuming acceptance |
| Successor | Entity, transaction information and documents held | Distinguishes records custody from liability transfer |
| Other parties | Site controller, contractor or equipment supplier | Identifies any independently supportable duty |
| Evidence holders | Witnesses, archives, clinicians and insurers | Rebuilds the factual case |
| Urgent issue | Deadline, disposal or pending corporate change | Directs immediate legal attention |
Add a confidence column to your working copy
Mark an entry as confirmed by a document, recalled personally or reported by someone else. For example, a company number on a contract is stronger identity evidence than a former colleague's memory of a name. The distinction does not make recollection useless; it shows where verification should be prioritised. Keep the source document beside the entry where possible.
A practical handover can consist of the worksheet, a one-page chronology and an indexed folder of essential records. Avoid sending hundreds of unlabelled images before the adviser understands the identity problem. Start with the employer document, current status evidence, medical position and urgent dates. More detailed disclosure can then be organised around the actual questions.
Update the worksheet when new information arrives, keeping earlier versions. A corrected company identity should be explained, not silently substituted. That history may matter when evaluating earlier notifications or search results. It also prevents different people working on the case from using inconsistent names and repeating enquiries under an obsolete assumption.
Three hypothetical closed-employer cases
A factory shut but the company survives
A fictional machinist assumes a claim is impossible because the factory closed and the building was demolished. The company-register history shows the same legal entity remains active with a different registered office. The immediate task is to verify that it was the employer, identify insurance and assess the injury claim, rather than begin a restoration application for a company that still exists.
Demolition may have removed physical evidence, but maintenance records, photographs and witnesses may survive. Active status does not guarantee assets or cover. The example illustrates why legal identity and recovery prospects must be checked separately from the visible fate of the workplace. It does not predict whether the machinist's underlying allegation of negligence would succeed.
A dissolved employer with a potential insurance match
A fictional former warehouse employee has an injury claim and learns that the employer was dissolved after insolvency. An insurance search produces a possible policy covering the relevant period. The solicitor must confirm the insured entity, policy response and statutory route, including whether direct proceedings against the insurer are available or restoration needs consideration.
The match does not establish liability, and the company's disappearance does not remove the need for medical and accident evidence. Limitation must be addressed while coverage enquiries continue. The example shows why a claimant should not spend money on restoration automatically, nor assume that finding an insurer means the remaining work is merely calculating a payment.
A familiar brand under a new company
A fictional worker returns to the same premises years later and finds the brand still trading with several former managers. The new company says it bought selected assets and holds some archived records. The enquiry must separate the old employer, the transaction, any legal transfer of relevant liabilities and the new company's role as a possible record holder.
Suing the new company solely because its sign looks familiar would skip essential analysis. Refusing all contact because it denies liability could also lose a useful evidence lead. A targeted request for the transaction and record position may help. The example illustrates the value of distinct questions rather than treating commercial continuity as conclusive proof of legal responsibility.
Limitation and the practical value of the claim
Personal injury proceedings in England and Wales commonly have a three-year limitation period, subject to knowledge rules and important exceptions. A developing disease may require careful consideration of what the person knew and when. Closure does not automatically restart the period. The guide to personal injury deadlines and which date matters explains why the calendar needs individual assessment.
Company restoration, insolvency deadlines and insurance enquiries are not substitutes for the underlying limitation analysis. A potential route may require several coordinated steps. Ask who is responsible for identifying and protecting each deadline, and obtain clear confirmation of any retainer. Sending a form, notifying an officeholder or asking an insurer to search does not ordinarily mean civil proceedings have been commenced.
The adviser should also discuss proportionality: the claim's apparent merits, medical value, evidence gaps, likely costs and realistic source of recovery. A technically arguable claim may not justify expensive proceedings where no assets or cover can be identified. Conversely, a modest initial evidence file may reveal a workable route. Neither optimism nor closure alone should determine that assessment.
Ask AJ Solicitors to confirm whether the matter falls within its services and what written costs and funding terms apply. Its services are private fee and do not include legal aid. Do not assume a free consultation, guaranteed recovery or a particular insurance-tracing capability. The appropriate next step is a focused, documented assessment of the actual employer and claim.
Frequently asked questions
1. Does the workplace shutting mean the legal employer no longer exists?
No. A site may close while the company continues elsewhere or stops trading without dissolution. Check the exact legal name, company number where applicable and current status. A locked building or closure announcement does not establish the procedural position. Your solicitor should distinguish legal existence, financial resources and insurance before deciding how a claim might be pursued.
2. Which document is most useful for identifying my former employer?
A contract or payroll document containing the legal name and company number can be a strong starting point, but compare several records where possible. Branding, payroll processors and group arrangements can cause confusion. Preserve conflicting documents rather than selecting one prematurely. The relevant employer is the entity connected to the work and liability being alleged, which may differ from the final employer in a long career.
3. What if I worked for a sole trader rather than a company?
A sole trader's business closing is not the same as a limited company's dissolution, and Companies House may not answer the identity question. The individual's position, insurance and any relevant insolvency require separate assessment. Provide contracts, invoices, payroll information and known names. Do not assume a company-restoration procedure applies simply because the trading premises have closed or the business name is no longer used.
4. Does an active company-register entry prove there is money to pay me?
No. Active status concerns registration and does not guarantee solvency, assets or responsive insurance. A company may remain legally active while no longer trading. The practical claim assessment should consider both liability and recovery prospects. Preserve current status evidence, but do not treat it as a financial guarantee or assume that a registered office is the old operating workplace.
5. Can I sue the former director because the company has disappeared?
A director is not automatically personally responsible for the company's injury liabilities. A separate legal basis would need supporting facts. The former director may be a witness or know where records are held without being the correct defendant. Tell your solicitor about their role, but do not substitute them for the company merely because they remain contactable or appear to have assets.
6. What should I do if the employer is in administration or liquidation?
Identify the exact process, appointment date and officeholder, and obtain legal advice about the proposed claim. Different insolvency procedures can affect how proceedings are started or continued. Notify the relevant adviser of any limitation concern. An insolvency form, insurance notification and civil claim perform different functions, so ask what each step achieves rather than assuming one automatically protects all rights.
7. Does registering as a creditor preserve the injury deadline?
Not necessarily. Registering a claim in an insolvency process is not ordinarily the same as commencing personal injury proceedings or suspending limitation. Keep the form and acknowledgement, and ask your solicitor what protective steps are required. The insolvency process, insurer route and civil deadline should be coordinated explicitly rather than treated as interchangeable methods of starting a claim.
8. Can old employers' liability insurance still matter after closure?
Yes, a relevant policy may respond to a qualifying liability even after the business stops trading. The insured entity, policy period, terms and claim circumstances must be checked. A historical certificate or database match is a lead, not automatic acceptance of coverage or negligence. Your adviser should connect the policy to the actual employer and relevant event or exposure period.
9. Does no ELTO match prove the employer was uninsured?
No. The search details or available records may be incomplete, and further proportionate enquiries may be possible. However, there is no guarantee that another search will find cover. Record what was searched and the response so an adviser can evaluate next steps. The legal duty to insure, where applicable, is different from evidence that a responsive policy actually existed.
10. Can I bring proceedings directly against the insurer?
A statutory route may be available in qualifying circumstances involving the insured's position, but it requires legal assessment. The relevant dates, statutory conditions and insurance terms matter. You still need to establish the insured's liability and the insurer's obligation. Do not assume that every insurer associated with a closed business can be sued directly or that this route guarantees payment.
11. Must every dissolved employer be restored before a claim?
No. A qualifying direct-insurer route may avoid restoration, while other circumstances may require it. The correct strategy depends on the company history, insurance and proposed proceedings. Ask why restoration is necessary before incurring costs. Restoring a company addresses legal existence; it does not itself establish negligence, locate a policy or create assets from which compensation can be paid.
12. Does the personal injury exception for restoration mean my claim has no deadline?
No. The exception described in restoration guidance concerns the time to apply for restoration for that purpose, not an unlimited period for the underlying injury claim. Personal injury limitation must be analysed separately, including any relevant knowledge rules or exceptions. Do not delay because the company can potentially be restored later. Ask for advice about the actual proceedings and protective steps.
13. Is a company with a new name a different defendant?
Not necessarily. A change of name can leave the same legal entity in existence, which is why the company number and history are important. A different entity using a similar trading name is another situation. Preserve the documents showing the change and seek verification before issuing proceedings. Familiar branding alone is not a reliable test of legal continuity.
14. Is the business that bought the old employer automatically liable?
No. The transaction may involve shares, assets or other arrangements with different consequences. Relevant transfers of liabilities require legal analysis rather than assumption. The buyer may hold useful records even if it is not the defendant. Provide transfer letters, payroll changes and transaction information where available, separating the questions of who employed you, who holds evidence and who may bear liability.
15. Can the parent company pay because the subsidiary has closed?
A parent company is not automatically liable merely because it owns or owned the employer. A separate duty or other legal basis would need specific evidence. Group branding, shared offices and financial resources do not alone establish responsibility. Record who controlled the relevant work and made decisions, so your solicitor can assess any properly supportable allegation against another entity.
16. Where might records survive after the old office disappears?
Possible holders include an insolvency practitioner, insurer, broker, archive provider, occupational health service or successor business. Former managers may know where records went. Each holder may retain only part of the history. Use targeted, lawful requests and identify the relevant period. Do not access old accounts without permission or assume that a new occupier owns every record previously kept at the premises.
17. Can former colleagues help if there is no accident book?
They may provide evidence about the incident, task, equipment or reporting practice, depending on what they actually observed. Keep eyewitness knowledge separate from information heard later. Independent accounts are more useful than a jointly agreed script. Missing records can create difficulties without automatically ending the claim, and your adviser can consider medical records, messages and other contemporaneous evidence alongside witnesses.
18. What if I cannot remember the exact employment dates?
Give the best supported range and identify its basis, such as tax documents, a pension statement or a remembered life event. Mark uncertainty clearly and preserve records that may refine it. Do not alter dates to match an insurance period. Accurate ranges are more useful than false precision, especially where company transfers or several exposure periods could affect the legal and insurance analysis.
19. Does closure restart the three-year personal injury period?
Closure does not automatically restart or suspend limitation. Many claims in England and Wales have a three-year period, with important knowledge rules and exceptions. The company-status problem may require additional procedural work while that period continues. Obtain advice promptly and ask who is responsible for protecting the deadline; insurance tracing and unanswered correspondence should not be assumed to stop time.
20. What should I prepare for a closed-employer claim assessment?
Prepare the employer worksheet, employment documents, current status evidence, incident or exposure chronology and medical position. Add insurance leads, known record holders and any urgent dates. Explain gaps honestly and ask about merits, recovery prospects and likely costs. Confirm the firm's scope and written retainer before assuming that it has accepted responsibility for tracing insurance, restoring a company or issuing proceedings.
