Alan Kenyon, a postal worker from Clifton in York, is understood to have tripped over a part of his delivery van that had come loose. This caused the 49-year-old, who works for Parcelforce, a trading name of the Royal Mail Group, to fall out of the back of the van. Mr Kenyon fell with such force, according to his legal representative, that “onlookers thought he had been knocked over by a passing car”.

Mr Kenyon had to undergo two operations following his accident and he still requires physiotherapy and regular injections as part of his recovery.

He has now received a pay out of £11,000 from his employer to compensate him for his injuries. Royal Mail, which is likely to have used its employers’ liability insurance to cover the compensation sum, released this statement in response to the incident:

“Safety of our employees is paramount, any such incident is upsetting to the person it happens to.”

The company, which is owned by tycoon Richard Branson, is claiming that The Voice’s studio set has a green room for contestants which is named V-ROOM. Virgin Holidays, which has ‘v-room’ lounges for its customers at two airports, believes that this is confusing and breaches its copyright.

A statement for Virgin Holidays was released, which states:

“Virgin Holidays has two v-room leisure lounges at Gatwick and Manchester airports, the former of which has been open for more than four years… They are extremely popular with our customers.

“In the light of this, and the confusion this is causing our customers who are questioning the motives of the BBC in online conversations because they are unsure which property is which, Virgin Holidays is currently exploring whether the use of the term in The Voice represents a copyright infringement and if it is proven to be so, will consider appropriate legal action.”

If Virgin Holidays proceeds with a legal case, the BBC may find itself needing to rely on its professional indemnity insurance.

The 28 retired players, including former Hall of Famers Bob Lilly, Randy White and Rayfield Wright, claim that the NFL was negligent in its duty to protect players from repeated blows to the head and concussion, which could lead to serious brain injuries and health problems in later life. The NFL is also accused of fraudulent concealment, conspiracy, material and negligent misrepresentation in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in Houston recently, states:

“The bottom line is that the NFL has put its profits ahead of the health and well-being of its players,”

” … the NFL has purposefully sidestepped and obfuscated the concussion problem. As such, the NFL has consistently disputed the very real connection between concussions and brain injury.”

The players are seeking unspecified punitive damages and compensation from the NFL, which will have to rely on its professional indemnity insurance if it loses the case. At present, however, the organisation is denying the allegations made against it.

The law firm is said to have overseen negotiations in which Scottish businessman Whyte bought the club for the puny sum of just £1.

In the lawsuit, the administrators of the football club, Duff and Phelps, are accusing Collyer Bristow of a number of failings. These include professional negligence and a breach of rights and obligations. The administrators are now planning to sue for damages of £25 million on behalf of the football club.

Collyer Bristow has announced plans to strongly contest the claims, with a spokesperson saying:

“Collyer Bristow received detailed particulars of the claim on behalf of the administrators Duff & Phelps. A significant proportion of the damages claimed by the administrators [in excess of £25m] relates to claims for ‘consequential loss’, which we believe to be highly speculative.

“As we have previously stated, it is our intention to contest all claims brought by the administrators in the strongest possible terms, and this remains our position.”

If the Collyer Bristow should lose the case, however, it will need to rely on its professional indemnity insurance in order to cover the damages.

The affected models, which are the 5 Series and 6 Series built between 2003 and 2010, are being recalled because of a faulty battery cable. The company has said that in extreme situations, this defective part could lead to fire.

The BMW Group said in a statement:

“In some remote cases, the battery cable cover inside the boot of these vehicles may be incorrectly mounted.

“This can result in the electrical system malfunctioning, the vehicle failing to start and, in some cases, to charring or fire.”

The car company has sent letters to owners of the affected vehicles, letting them know of the problem and offering a free repair if they bring their cars to an authorised dealer.

BMW has stated that to its knowledge, no one had suffered any injuries as a result of the fault. However, if the fault did cause harm to anyone, the company may need to rely on its product liability insurance to cover any compensation payout.

“One claim which always sticks in my mind as being hilarious was when we visited the client’s house to collect premiums and renew policies, one of which was his household policy.

“My husband (and business partner) was kindly given a cup of coffee, which he and the other household members placed on the glass coffee table under which a German Shepherd dog was lying.

“Above the sound of the TV could be heard a gentle hissing, which gradually got louder and louder. The valve on the radiator had become loose and suddenly, black water started to shoot to the ceiling.

“The dog was panic stricken and reared up under the coffee table, carrying it and it’s contents across the room. The client dived onto the pipe to try to stem the flow, but couldn’t because the water was hot.

“The room, the furnishings and the occupants of the room were all covered in hot black radiator water. The glass coffee table was shattered and the spilt coffee damaged what the radiator didn’t! Amid the hysteria and eventual laughter, my husband completed a claim form!”

The incident occurred in the early hours of Monday 9th April, when revellers enjoying Bank Holiday celebrations were heading home. The woman, who has not been named, is believed to have fallen through the ground floor of the takeaway into the basement, injuring her arms and legs as a result of the incident.

Witnesses have claimed that the tiled floor “just fell through” and a hole measuring around 2ft by 2ft was left behind. The victim had to be rescued by fire crews and rushed to Whiston Hospital by paramedics, although her condition was not believed to be life threatening.

Health and safety inspectors, as well as building control inspectors, are currently conducting an investigation into what happened at the takeaway. However, if the restaurant’s owners are found to be liable for the incident and the victim decides to sue for compensation, they could be facing a hefty damages bill unless they have the proper professional insurance in place.

Comic Enterprises Ltd, which owns four The Glee Club venues in Birmingham, Cardiff, Nottingham and Oxford, is in the process of suing 20th Century Fox over its smash hit TV show Glee. The comedy chain is claiming that it owns the rights to the name, and that the film studio is infringing on its trademark rights by using it.

Although it is not clear whether Comic Enterprises Ltd is seeking any damages from the film studio, which is more than likely to have professional indemnity insurance in place to cover any costs resulting from the case, but it is seeking an injunction.

This could mean that if the comedy club company is successful in its lawsuit, the Glee TV show could be forced off the air. Lawyers for Fox have reportedly commented that this would be “potentially catastrophic”.

Head of the comedy chain company Mark Tughan said that he waited to file the lawsuit until he could measure the popularity of the show in the UK.

Danny Lavy has made comments in which he claims that the celebrity chef failed to promote their business, the Laurier Gordon Ramsay restaurant in Montreal, on TV chat shows and was even “too busy to come to the restaurant”. He has now cancelled the contract and dropped Ramsay’s name from the venture.

In a new lawsuit, Ramsay claimed that Lavy’s comments were “false and defamatory” and said that he believed his role was to come up with recipe ideas and to lend his name to the restaurant. He did not believe he was under any obligation to visit the premises.

The lawsuit states:

“Negative and critical public comments regarding the plaintiff could have the effect of decreasing the commercial value of his name and any commercial ventures associated with it”.

Ramsay is now pursuing £1.5 million in damages from Lavy, who may need to rely on a professional indemnity insurance payout if he should lose the case.

Sandoz reportedly filed approached the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last January with a marketing application for a new pulmonary hypertension drug. The drug Sandoz wants to sell is understood to be a copycat version of a product, Remodulin, currently marketed by United Therapeutics.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in the District Court for New Jersey in the US, United Therapeutics alleges that no less than three of its patents on the Remodulin will be infringed by Sandoz’s new generic version of the product.

As the company has responded within the required 45 days of receiving notice from Sandoz, approval for the generic version of the drug will be automatically stayed by the FDA. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, this could last for as long as 30 months.

The exact terms of the lawsuit have not yet been made public, but it is likely that United Therapeutics Corp will be seeking to block the sale of Sandoz’s generic version of its drug indefinitely. The company could also seek significant damages from the Swiss-based Novartis AG, which being such a large corporation is likely to have professional indemnity insurance in order to cover patent infringement related cases of this kind.