Bypassing lawyers would save £1.5bn, insurer claims

"Research found that if insurers handled claims directly an estimated £1.5bn could be stripped from the cost of premiums."

Unarguable! - insurers handle claims =

1/ More valid claims repudiated

2/ Less compensation paid for the surviving claims

3/ Less legal costs paid

The only problem is this.....http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/car-insurance-costs-to-rise-again

They have already gone public to say that premiums will rise, so when all this goes through, and premiums don't drop, or even rise, they can point to this announcement and say "we told you so".

So probably a more accurate rendition would be:

"Research found that if insurers handled claims directly an estimated £1.5bn could be added to their profits."

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it though.

In light of Aviva's, aka Chris Grayling's, latest anouncement about the future of (low value) claims I have now decided to quit being a solicitor and open a flower shop next to each of their offices.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/say-it-with-flowers

I am sure Barry the scaffolder will be delighted to receive a bunch of lillies to compensate him for his accident.

Insurers squeeling about excessive costs arise mainly due to their own inability to

a) - deal with claims in a timely fashion
b) - make realistic proposals for settlement
c) - want to investigate every claim within an inch of it's life
d) - allow their panel sols to run cases to the doors of court before a belated attack of wisdom comes over them to settle the day before trial (what about their own sols costs which have escalated in all this time)
e) - fail to take a sensible/ pragmatic view on liability disputes and often just put their blinkers on and listen to the smelly brown stuff eminating from their policyholder
f) - the poor commerical decisions to run LVI disputes, which have at best a 5% success rate

Any more????

We deal with Insurers regularly. They dislike us more than Claimant's solicitors. They dislike paying for the trouble they get themselves into.

For example, we have a case in Court next week where "predictable costs" were ordered and the Defendant paid those with the exception of the psychological report fee. The Insurers say that the report was unnecessary and so they will not pay for it. We say that it was certainly necessary primarily because the examining GP reported that the Claimant was (on a scale of 1 - 10), no.10 and in the worst possible pyschological state as a result of the accident !

Under the predictable costs rules, it's not certain that this is a recoverable disbursement however, it's fair to say that it was necessarily incurred. Not according to our caring opponents (the Insurers) - they say that it was not reasonable to obtain a psychological report notwithstanding the significant level of psychological damage as opined by the GP.

Obviously, our opponent would have preferred to brush the significant psychological damage under the carpet.

This is the sort of thing that they will get away with if they had the power they are seeking.

Incidentally, this is just one example of many. We are regularly misled by Insurers and we know that they will not stop at much to secure the best financial settlement for themselves.

We can't afford to trust Insurers or their representatives because they too frequently prove that they abuse any trust and seek to take advantage of those who lack equivalent power.

Aviva et al need to be reminded that the consequences of accidents have to be dealt with in an adversarial manner. Disputes have at least two sides and it is bizarre to believe that fairness would be derived from a situation where one of those sides had the power to control the outcome of any particular dispute.

Straightforward logic really but the Government don't seem to listen (no change there).

http://amandayip.typepad.com/life_in_the_law/2013/02/minor-rta-claims-so-simple-anyone-can-bring-them.html

I hope Amanda doesn't mind me sharing this.

Have Aviva purchased Inter Flora?

I'm hugely surprised at this announcement.

Aviva have admitted to the world that, in their opinion, claimant lawyers are not necessary to obtain a fair and reasonable compensation settlement.

After all these years of sneaking around, using made-up stats about fraudulent claims etc, why admit the truth now?

http://www.claimsnews.co.uk/#/d-a-i-l-y-n-e-w-s/4568926167

I had a case whereby the Insurers refused to admit liability on the basis their insured had a blackout at the wheel. I requested the Defendant's medical records and the insurers refused so I made pre-action disclosure Application .. guess what ? Liability then admitted !

I acted for another client involved in a serious head on collision and the insurer, despite being aware of my involvement was visiting my client in hospital pressurising her to accept £1000 because ' your solicitor would encourage an early settlement so the case isnt dragged out ' . This particular insurer was subject to a BBC expose a few years ago whereby my client was interviewed. Luckily she had the sense to decline the offer.

In another case unfortunately my client did accept such an offer after the insurers received notification of the claim and when I requested costs on the grounds we had a valid retainer they refused to pay. Proceedings were issued citing their conduct in this and other cases and it was a case of ' how much do you want not to proceed to a hearing?? '

Im sure everyone commenting here has experienced this type of behaviour and Insurers have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted. They think that if they raise this old chestnut every few years their conduct will be forgotten.

Even after getting over all the hurdles of settling the most straight-forward of cases Insurers are outsourcing MOJ/predictive costs to their draftsmen to argue over disbursements etc. They will not be happy until they have a one way tunnel of premiums coming in and nothing going out the other end.

mmmmm - so Aviva and other insurers say we can trust them to be fair and pay what is due to anyone injured and who has a legitimate claim.

So what will happen if they agree to pay £x for someones injuries who has not been represented and who at a later point realises that his or her arm / back/ shoulder etc have not improved or has got worse and they really ought to have received £ xxx - will the insurer be liable for professional negligence as we would be ?

This could make PPI look small.

I have on occasion used Aviva indemnity insurance policies for property work but no more!

Anyone who uses only them, switch to Legal & Contingency or GCS. Just as good and usually a bit cheaper. You should all mention to this to any of your conveyancing colleagues.

If removing lawyers from personal injury saves money why not apply this logic to other areas?

Taking doctors out of healthcare would stop people being diagnosed and needing those expensive operations and medicines. We could save millions.

Taking away Policemen would stop all those people being arrested and costing us millions in legal aid and housing them in prison.

I started typing this as a joke but I can just see some Tory politicians nodding in agreement!

Once upon a time a great injustice arose.

1 Mr solicitor realised that it is very expensive to defend such alleged injuries as whiplash for companies.

2 Mr claims company smelled the money and Mr victim made lots of claims

3 Mr insurer thought, what do I care? The greater the turnover the better for me as I will just add fees to cover the whole corrupt merry go round to cover my costs and profit margin.

4 Mr consumer noticed the diseased state of the market and massive fee rises and called time.

May I suggest that if any potential client identifies themselves as working for an insurance company either refuse to act or insist on a substantial retainer. That way they'll soon see what its like to be without competent legal representation

Yet again Kelly, completely blinkered to the reality of the situation. You either do not read these threads properly, or you are too stupid to understand them. Posted in these pages are dozens of examples of shoddy, underhand, and downright dishonest behaviour of insurers. And that is whilst people have the benefit of representation.

To suggest that third party capture can work is indeed correct. It will work for the insurers. Not for those captured and injured. Of course, your post is entirely expected and boringly predictable by all those who frequent these hallowed pages and so look forward to your pearls of insurer inspired wisdom.

And yes Kelly, some lawyers in PI are well paid. Not obscene, but a decent amount in return for years of study and hard work. What is wrong with that, exactly? Where is the government intervention into the earnings of accountants, doctors, vets, bankers, IT consultants, surveyors, architects, plumbers, plasterers, electricians, car detailers, etc etc?

Whatever drivel you come up with, you are unable to escape from one simple truth.

These changes benefit nobody except the insurance industry. Nobody.

Welcome to Nazi britain.

Third Party Capture can work and there are advantages. I have said previously that I worked for a company and have done it myself. I used to deal with the cases where there was no injury - damage and hire. But we also dealt with injury claims too and it generally worked well for claimants.

Granted their are some disadvantages and some insurers will take advantage, particularly on more complex personal injury claims. But with the right safeguards it can work.

As for your other point - years of study and hard work should be rewarded. But I think sometimes these people forget who paid to get them through school and university. A little more appreciation of this point would be welcome rather than mouthing off about others who receive rewards for being a shareholder.

And I used to have monthly meetings with the representatives from all the major insurers to discuss cases. All very civilised, settling (or dumping) cases over tea and biscuits and friendly chit chat. The world has moved on Kelly since you did bent metal. Insurers are no longer reasonable, as the stories you ignore amply demonstrate. And not just on more complex cases. Far from it. If anything, more complex cases tend to be handled better by defendants, perhaps because more senior claims handlers, or in-house legal tend to have brains. It is the exception rather than the rule that lower value claims are dealt with reasonably, and efficiently.

What are these "safeguards" you keep mentioning exactly? And who would police them?

Years of study and hard work of thousands will indeed being rewarded. With redundancy.

I completely fail to understand your question about who paid for my education. Are you saying I don't phone my mother often enough? I paid for my education myself Kelly, scrimping through part time study whilst earning £6,500 per year in my first photocopying job in a law firm. In any event, I don't think you'll find anyone's education was paid for by insurers. Do you actually have a point?

Oh, and it bears repeating:-

Whatever drivel you come up with, you are unable to escape from one simple truth.

These changes benefit nobody except the insurance industry. Nobody.

I remember Geoff Hoon saying 'we need a public debate about lawyers pay' or words to that effect in 1998 (obviously he'd of used the Shakespeare but didn't want to appear posh).

Removing the party political aspects from the debate, I've worked in both claimant and defendant firms and the insurers are incompetent to a degree that is truly shocking, obstructive to a point that leads to one banging one's head against a wall and illogical to the degree that I think I'm dealing with some post modernist conceptual artist.

Of course in insurers were staffed with educated, reasoned, critical, rationale people then there would be limited merit in the proposals but that's Alice through the looking glass stuff.

I have repeatedly seen correspondence from insurers when we've sent letters before claim that tell us that they can't deal with the matter because we don't have the policy number. . . because the registration number of the vehicle and driver isn't enough.

I've also had tried to explain to an insurer that the fact that their client has been convicted of s.3 and excess alc means that we're not really that keen on their 50/50. In fact f--k it, first thing tomorrow we're going to issue.

The figures were from the Government consultation paper which in turn were from a study carried out by committees of experts. Here is the link. To be fairit was focusing more on the medical assessment.

http://www.svv.ch/sites/default/files/document/file/CEA_HWS-Studie_englisch.pdf

However you fail to answer the question why would a standard graded payout system no be more equitable for the majority of cases. The variation in payout say for example below £3000 surely cannot be that high therefore why the need for lawyers, doctors, physios. These are self limiting soft tissue injuries in the vast majority of cases.

???

Dr Anon

Dr Suspicious Presence,
A standard graded payout system? To be determined by the insurer, based on reports prepared by a panel of your clones? Where it is left to litigants in person to fight legally represented multi billion pound insurers who will deny liability for the most strightforward cases?

As I said, pure genius. Nothing wrong with that system at all.

Now let me ask you a question.

Whatever drivel you come up with, you are unable to escape from one simple truth.

These changes benefit nobody except the insurance industry. If you disagree, explain yourself.

I don't rate either but on balance I went for the Predators as they seemed less reptilian.

Dear All,

Last night I was interviewed on Radio 5 Live, which is listened to by many commuters and professional drivers. A report of the interview, put out by the Law Society, is below.

In an interview on BBC 5 live drive yesterday at 6pm Lucy told listeners: "I don't like the sound of an insurance company trying to pull the wool over people's eyes...their interest is in making sure that payments are as low as possible, because their interest is in looking after their shareholders."

She pointed out that: "Solicitors' interest is in looking after the interest of their clients, that's what they focus on. They focus on making sure that people who are the innocent victims of accidents are compensated for their pain and suffering, are compensated for their loss of earnings, and receive the right level of compensation, because they have the expertise."

The presenter then raised the subject of insurance premiums for motorists.

Lucy responded: "Well, you say, if we believe in the figures from Aviva, we haven't had the opportunity to test their figures, but it [the current system] is even less efficient as far as the individual driver is concerned if they are the victim of an accident and the compensation they get is much lower than it would otherwise be, because the people who they are dealing with are these huge businesses like Aviva, very experienced negotiators, and the poor old motorist or passenger will be completely at sea in relation to that, they need their own independent advice."

The print coverage also includes quotes from Lucy, who said: "Who do you trust to give you a fair deal? A lawyer working for you, or an insurer working for the person or company in the wrong whose main interest is minimising what they pay you?"

She added: "You need someone independent to make sure that you get what the law entitles you to have.

"It appears that Aviva want to strip us all of our rights so they can make more profits."

This is just our opening shot. The Law Society will campaign against this attempt to stack the deck against the victims of other people's negligence.

I have been very impressed by many of the examples of insurers' egregious behaviour that have been given in response to this story and it would be great to be able to use some of these examples in our campaign, but we would need to validate them. If you are willing for us to use your examples please email them to me at
President@lawsociety.org.uk

All the best,

Lucy

I fail to see that any of these arguments are in the claimant's interest. We all know that Claiant's fake injuries, or exaggerate their symptoms for a quick gain, and if they do not get the iead in their heads then their will be goaded by law firms. The reality is that fee earners are by majority not qualified, have no contact other than a few calls and letters, and the medical examiner spends about 5 minutes before reaching the same prognosis whether old, young, comes in with a walkng stick. I know that firms ship Claimant's to preferred experts who provide favourable outcomes. At the end of the day if the insurer pays £2,000 to a claimant on the day of accident and they are prepared to accept it what is the issue? The genuine would reject and use solicitors and otherwise it is better that costs are not claimed on the back of a injury that amounted from nothing. It seems from this forum that solicitors firms who have an interest are trying to control the claimant who at the end of the day can do what they want and have the freedom of expression to do so without pressure of an ATE, referral fee, quick fee in costs etc.

@DomCoop

No the law does not require/obligate people to claim but the degree to which they are cajoled cold called have their details passed on by the police, garages, etc means there are 1500 claims a day for what is in most cases a sprained neck/back which is self limiting. The whole solicitor, dr, physio is I think not "necessary" for most cases if we had a standardised payout system. It should be remembered that there is a large cohort of people including myself who have had an accident suffered a self limiting injury for a few weeks and that was that and never claimed. I do not feel I have have somehow been "denied" justice because of that. The current system allows for medical reports, I am suggesting for a selflimiting injury it really isn't necessary especially when most reports are just a rubber stamp and completed in a few minutes on electronic software.

@DT

I think if your own insurance was paying, many people would only claim what was necessary e.g loss of earnings and few weeks of more pronounced symptoms if this would in turn keep premiums low and reduce costs with no lawyers or doctors involved. New Zealand Insurance for an average car is about £300 fully comp. In Canada except Ontario it is quite reasonable as well £600/year. Manitoba has a state run compensation scheme and insurance is cheaper than a lot of the other states. Do you have evidence that such a system necessitates massive rises in premiums?? That would be interesting. Passengers, cuclists and pedestrians would also be covered by your insurance the third party driver would be covered by his own.

I suppose fundamentally we need to decide as a society if we want to head down the American route of an over litginous society or not. Wider question should be why does a minor self limiting injury "HAVE" to have a monetary payout. Why not just physio, loss of earnings etc. A lot of people don't claim at all for a few weeks of neck pain, no big deal.

Like I said no system is perfect, but the current one is complete BS a riddled with fraud exaggeration, not disimilar to large parts of the benefits system

Dr Anon