BI Claimback – is your dental practice entitled to more money?

BI Claimback – is your dental practice entitled to more money?

Dental surgeries that received business interruption settlements because of pandemic losses are entitled to more money, says Salmon Assessors.

Leading loss assessors firm, Salmon Assessors, has said that dental practices that received a settlement from insurers because of pandemic losses are entitled to a substantial additional payment.

The firm is starting a nationwide campaign aimed at 370,000 businesses, including thousands of dental practices and laboratories, whose business interruption claims in relation to Covid-19 lockdowns were initially refused by their insurers – but upheld by the Supreme Court decisions.

The campaign is branded

Chief executive Jeff Salmon said: ‘We now believe every business that made a successful business interruption claim because of the delay caused by the Supreme Court judgement is due to a further significant payment.

‘This is over and above any settlements that insurers have already made. The additional payment is due even though insurers have already settled most claims.’

What is BI Claimback?

BI Claimback centres around the belief that every policyholder subjected to an excessive wait for their claims to be met should receive appropriate compensation from their insurers through the incorrect decision by those insurers who didn’t accept the BI claims at the beginning of the pandemic.

Salmon stressed the additional payment only relates to successful claimants. It does not apply to those claimants whose insurers did not have to settle claims because of the wording of their policies.

Salmon Assessors is working on a ‘no further settlement – no fee’ structure. It represented more than 700 dental practices and laboratories between 2020 and 2022, negotiating business interruption claims.

BI Claimback’s central argument is that any business that made a successful BI claim relating to the Covid-19 lockdown precisely because the Supreme Court ruled in their favour should be entitled to a further substantial payment through a financial apology.

In short, any insurer who was party to (or relied upon) the High Court and Supreme Court litigations mistreated their clients.

‘Pandemic of financial fear’

Their policyholders had a proper and legal expectation to believe that they could commence their business interruption claims at the precise time that they knew of the extent of their probable losses.

Regarding the dental industry specifically, Jeff said: ‘Those dental practitioners whose policy wordings were written in a manner that included “communicable diseases” (such as Covid-19 would be categorised), rightfully expected those to whom they had paid a healthy insurance premium to become their financial “safety net”.

‘Practices had to wait an inordinately excessive time for the Supreme Court decision to determine that their businesses and livelihoods would be saved from possible financial disaster.

‘Conversely, their insurers created their own “pandemic of financial fear” amongst a medical profession that was already facing some of the most challenging changes and uncertainties.’

There was no doubt that there was a lot of uncertainty relating to different types of wording on various policies.

No doubt

However, Jeff added: ‘While the decision by the courts certainly provided the clarity that both insurers and the FCA needed, the bottom line is that there was no doubt in the court’s opinion that the insurance companies that did not initially pay out (as other insurers with virtually the same wording did) was incorrect.

‘Obviously, as a direct result of the insurers who challenged their own wording, dentists did not receive the settlements which they would have received had their insurers acted correctly.

‘Certainly, we expect some insurance companies to argue with us that it was their right to take the matter to be tested in court.

‘Of that there’s no argument. Indeed, the FCA itself in its 2020 guidance documents for affected businesses, suggested that those insurers that were party to the case didn’t necessarily have to make any payments to their policyholders until a decision had been reached.

‘However, nothing in the least was brought up in either court case about compensating policyholders who had to wait for the Supreme Court decision.’

Salmon Assessors is not in the slightest doubt that these insurers owe a financial apology to those surgeries (and the hundreds of thousands of businesses) who had to wait for the decision.

BI Claimback will be financially spearheading a campaign by way of a group action that Salmon Assessors believes insurers will pay out in the short term.

For more information or to find out how much you could be owed, visit and

Get the most out of your membership by subscribing to Dentistry CPD
  • Access 600+ hours of verified CPD courses
  • Includes all GDC recommended topics
  • Powerful CPD tracking tools included
Register for webinar
Add to calendar