Personal injury lawyers meet on Jackson compromise
Thursday 16 February 2012 by John Hyde
The executive committee of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers meets today amid member discontent over its proposals for a compromise deal on the Jackson reforms.
Last week APIL set out a ‘Plan B’ to offer the government, as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill reaches its closing stages in the House of Lords.
Five members have since contacted the Gazette with a joint statement opposing the plan, with APIL also facing censure on discussion forums.
Critics are angry at plans to abandon qualified one-way costs shifting and accept that claimants pay for after-the-event insurance.
Comments
Jackson
Here's a good example, reported today, of the ridiculous costs which are being run up under CFAs: a claim worth less than £15,000, which settled before trial. Costs (including success fee): £74,000. Note the comments at paragraph 50 of the judgment:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/137.html
Yes, this is an example of
Yes, this is an example of insurers being held to ransom and paying out on spurious/frivolous/unmertied claims on the basis that is cheaper to do so than to investigate properly and defend....
Hang on a minute, yes they did defend right up until the moment before Trial before accepting that they were responsible and were going to lose. But it's all the claimant and their lawyers fault right?
That it was proceeding to
That it was proceeding to trial, though it eventually settled before, shows the defence fought it, thereby necessitating higher costs. Should the claimant have just given up when the defence kept fighting and arguing they were not to blame? A realistic assessment of liability early on by the inusrers or representative would have decimated those costs.
More Defendant bias
The case that "Me" has posted is not a good example. That case appears to have had a 5 year conduct period and given it settled shortly before trial would indicate that a Defendant may have strung it out and thereby increasing the costs, When is David Cameron meeting the Claimant industry or is he only interested in the insurers who donate to his party.
Me - do you work in PI? And
Me - do you work in PI? And are you a member of APIL?
Am I missing something here,
Am I missing something here, the defendants say fraud claims are increasing premiums, will somebody tell me why they are paying out on fraud claims, they may be stupid but not that bad, if its fraud they dont pay.
Also there is a portal for RTA and detailed assessment if they consider costs are high so all the protection is in place. Has Don Cameroni and his special friend Jackson looked at a detailed bill and file, they can see how the costs have increased as the insurers cant deal with claims in a cost saving manner and they are happy to get the file off their desk and over to panel sols.
I have an insurance background and ACII qualified so its coming from the horses mouth.
I have put this to most of the FOIL members but guess what nobody has the guts to reply, they support the insurers as they pay their bills simple as that.
Please if you are reading this any FOIL members tell me I am wrong.
Defendant bias
There's nothing in the judgment to suggest that the case was "strung out" by the defendant or that it settled "shortly before trial". If either of those things was correct, Neuberger LJ would presumably not have made the comments which he made in paragraph 50 of his judgment. There's nothing to suggest that the case had a five-year conduct period: the CFA was entered into October 2007 and the claim settled in April 2010. And no, I don't work in PI and I don't have any connection with APIL.