Our online report on the government’s decision to implement Lord Justice Jackson’s headline civil costs recommendations has nourished a little resentment in our readers – mainly aimed at our old friends in the insurance industry.

‘The premise that a "compensation culture" exists has been exposed as a myth and yet the government appears to have taken a knee-jerk response in order to placate the lobbyists on behalf of the insurance industry,’ one poster shouted.

‘The only winners today are the insurance companies,’ another screamed. ‘Who wants NO WIN NO FEE when you can simply have WIN WIN!’

At the risk of inflaming passions further, here is what the Association of British Insurers had to say about the government plans:

‘Today’s government announcement on civil litigation reform will put the brake on runaway legal costs and mean a better deal for genuine claimants and insurance customers… The ABI has been campaigning for reforms to the current system, especially reducing the high level of legal costs in settling personal injury claims, one of the major reasons for the general rise in the motor insurance premiums.’

Nick Starling, one of the ABI’s top dogs, said: ‘These reforms are good news for genuine claimants, who too often struggle to get fair compensation under the current system.

‘The ABI has long campaigned for reform that puts the genuine claimant at the heart of a simpler, faster, more cost-effective system.’

Personal injury lawyers will be particularly riled by this bit of Starling’s quote:

‘For too long ambulance-chasing lawyers and claims management firms have encouraged many people to believe that there is a compensation culture to exploit.

‘The result has been a slower process for genuine claimants, and out of control legal costs that end up being paid for by all consumers through higher insurance premiums. Currently, for every £1 motor insurers pay out in compensation, an extra 87 pence is paid in legal costs.

‘By implementing in full the recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil litigation, the government has addressed the injustices of our civil justice system. And motorists, who are paying an extra 10% on their motor insurance as a result of high legal costs in settling personal injury claims, can look forward to cheaper insurance in the future.’

And having won this battle, the next issue in the insurers’ sights is this:

‘The final part of the reform process must be the abolition of referral fees and we urge the government to ban them’.

The accuracy of figures put out by the insurance industry in relation to the effect of legal costs on motor premiums have been called into question on numerous occasions.

But it was interesting that Starling expressly said that motorists ‘can look forward to cheaper insurance in the future’ as a result of the upcoming changes.

At least claimant lawyers have something with which they can hold insurers to account if they fail to live up to that promise.