High Court vindicates RSA on ‘in-house’ repair deals

High Court
Friday 15 June 2012 by John Hyde

An insurance company was entitled to set its own rates for vehicle repairs after claimants suffered accidents, a High Court judge has ruled.

In his preliminary judgment on the case of Coles v Hetherton released today, Mr Justice Cooke said RSA Insurance was entitled to use MRNM garages, a member of the RSA Group, and charge the bill to the insurer of the at-fault driver.

Two of those insurers, Allianz and Provident, last year launched actions to contest the principle related to 13 separate cases where RSA had been the claimant’s insurer.

The case comes as the industry is under scrutiny following the Office of Fair Trading’s decision to refer the motor insurance market to the Competition Commission. A report last month found evidence that some companies were taking advantage of the system to add inflated costs to claims and push premiums up for all motorists.

In defending the claim, RSA said its costs reflected what the policyholder would have to pay individually for such repairs, even if they were arranged and paid for by the insurer – an argument accepted by Mr Justice Cooke.

The company admitted that the model generated income for a company in the same group as itself, though it was not a subsidiary.

But RSA, which insures around two million vehicles in the UK, disputed the Allianz and Provident claim that charges were made even where no service at all had been provided by MRNM.

Mr Justice Cooke said that where a vehicle is damaged but can be repaired, the measure of the claimant’s loss could be taken as the ‘reasonable cost of repair’.

He added: ‘That reasonable cost is not necessarily the repair cost actually incurred, whether by the claimant or its insurer or indeed by anyone else who pays a repairer.’

Adrian Brown, chief executive for RSA in the UK and western Europe, said: ‘RSA’s motor repair practices have come in for a lot of criticism recently. I am pleased about the ruling on the legal principles and not surprised that RSA's approach has been vindicated.

‘If necessary we will continue to pursue our claims through the courts, however, given the clarity of the judgment, I hope this can now we brought to an agreed solution.

‘We remain keen to resolve the issues that exist within the motor market and are actively working with the government and OFT's efforts to find a solution.’

Comments

So it's legal but hardly

So it's legal but hardly moral. In the end, the only losers are the policyholders as insurers will now carry on this practice until they are stopped. And still they claim that premiums go up because of personal injury claims. Shame on the lot of them!

So I assume then that

So I assume then that defendant insurers will have no problems paying a medical invoice for the medical report made out by DomCoop Enterprises (Medical Reports) Limited (not a subsidiary, but the same group), which is £150 more, to cover the "administration"?

On the side

So what happened to dsclosure of a secret profit? If a Solicitor had done this s/he would have been hauled up up in front of the Star Chamber.

Secret profits are allowable

Secret profits are allowable for everybody but solicitors!

So it's legal but hardly moral

I love reading LSG blogs. In fact it is so entertaining that I feel I should make some sort of contribution.

Domcoop - you provide the best value for money here. Please provide the name and address of your practice and a cheque will be with you tomorrow morning. It won't be much - just enough to supply some brand new shiny name badges for you and your staff.

"I feel I should make some

"I feel I should make some sort of contribution."

Yes, we've noticed, although "some sort" could be fairly liberally interpreted.

Hmm............so the loss is

Hmm............so the loss is not the actual cost but the reasonable cost. Let's analyse that a little. My car is damaged and the cost of repair by a local garage is £2,000. I get my son to do the work at home and pay him £1,000. Can I now claim the the £2,000 and make a profit of £1,000?

Don't be so ridiculous,

Don't be so ridiculous, Interested Observer. You're not an insurance company, are you? You're not a bank, are you?

So this law doesn't apply to you!

If, on the other hand, your are a solicitor, then have a look at this:-

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/gazette-in-practice/law-reports/solicitors-disciplinary-tribunal-59 (that is only a short summary of the judgment, and the full report no longer appears on the SDT website), but if you see the second substantive paragraph, it contains the sentence:-

"It was further alleged against the first, second and third respondents that they had made secret profits; and had provided misleading information to clients;"

That came about because the Law Society (as it then was) decided that one shouldn't charge a telegraphic transfer fee as a disbursement, as the cost charged from the bank (which varies from transaction to transaction) was not the £20 fee being charged by the firm.

One rule for us; another rule for them.

What is the problem here?

What is actually the problem with the above judgement here? Is it just the usual anti bank/insurer brigade out in force again - or a justified concern?

Most insurers use their own selected insurers and bill the other side. There are also good reasons for doing so aside from the economics. O.K - it appears there was a relationship between RSA and MRMN. But the judge seems to have accepted the arguments made by RSA.

Perhaps someone who objects to the judgement could explain the specific area of disagreement and how things should be done following a motor claim - just so I am clear.

I'm not a lawyer but reading

I'm not a lawyer but reading this I think the problem is the view that if a solicitor was charging more than the actual work done by them or someone within their business was valued at, there would be issue taken with it but on the face of it that seems permissible by RSA.

I'm not a lawyer, either, and

I'm not a lawyer, either, and the judgement baffles me. Would somebody avoid the apparently smart and amusing "in" jokes and explain why I should not believe that the attribution of "oxymoron" to the phrase "honest lawyer" deserves to be understood to include judges? Does anyone under 40 not scratch their head over what the Archer-Shee (Rattigan's Winslow Boy) family were so upset about scarcely 100 years ago, or the fact that people might risk their lives in a duel, or actually commit suicide, rather than bear the stigma of a merely imputed dishonesty?

Secret Profit

If X Insurer allows/instructs Y Garage (which it owns) to repair,and then charges Z tortfeasor (i.e other Insurer) the cost + a % markup for the benefit of their profits,where is the morality here? No problem--it is legal and Jack Straw says.....................