Insurers have expressed their dismay at the Supreme Court’s decision on non-whiplash injuries and warned that motorists will end up feeling the effect through higher premiums.

Justices unanimously dismissed the insurers’ appeal against decisions relating to damages for whiplash and other injuries. Appellants had submitted to the court that these could be compensated concurrently, slashing the damages that could be claimed.

But the court ruled that in mixed cases claimants could receive additional damages to reflect different injuries – albeit with deductions applied to account for any overlap.

The outcome of these cases will be that thousands of mixed claims are now re-examined to see what damages are appropriate, causing a headache for insurers who had long campaigned for the tariff on whiplash cases.

A spokesperson for the Association of British Insurers said: ‘We’re disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the mixed injuries test case. We supported these test cases in the interest of clarity for claimants and defendants alike.

‘Given the dissenting judgment from the master of the rolls in the Court of Appeal case, it was an important point of principle to take the decision to the highest court in the UK. The outcome risks undermining the intention of the whiplash reforms. Motor insurers are doing all they can to keep prices as competitive as possible but this will only increase the cost pressures they’re facing.’

The insurer lobby machine will accelerate its move onto new targets in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. Last month the ABI unveiled a 10-point plan for reducing premiums which included new caps on damages for injuries other then whiplash – effectively imposing a tariff of fixed damages based on how long symptoms last.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which intervened in the test cases along with the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, said the Supreme Court has given a ‘clear and final’ position on mixed claims.

‘The erosion of damages for personal injuries has been contained to whiplash, for now. The Civil Liability Act was only ever about whiplash,’ said APIL secretary Brett Dixon. 'The Supreme Court is clear that the principle of full compensation is maintained for the other, non-tariff injuries. This is the final word on the issue, giving injured people and their representatives some much-needed clarity.’

Dixon added that the Official Injury Claim portal for handing claims now had to clear the backlog of cases which had stalled while this ruling was pending.

Matthew Maxwell Scott

Maxwell Scott: 'Naive to think insurers will give up long-running campaign'

Matthew Maxwell Scott, executive director of the Association of Consumer Support Organisations, said he expects that insurers will aim to reduce costs in other areas. He added: ‘Even after this defeat, it would be naive to think that insurers will give up their long-running campaign to remove general damages entirely in lower-value personal injury cases, and so those of us who believe that consumers hurt through no fault of their own deserve proper redress must keep up their guard.

‘While it is understandable from a commercial standpoint that the insurance industry felt it had to take this case all the way to the highest court, it would be refreshing if it now applied its laser-like focus elsewhere, for example on reducing frictional costs and improving claims processes.’

Law Society of England and Wales president Nick Emmerson said: 'We are pleased to see the Supreme Court’s judgment.

'We had welcomed the previous findings of the Court of Appeal that damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for claimants who have suffered a non-whiplash injury should be considered independently of the tariff for the whiplash injury.

'It is now important for these cases to be considered as quickly as possible so that parties suffering from mixed injuries are able to access justice promptly.'

 

This article is now closed for comment.