0 Anita Rice reports from the APIL conference on the conflict between insurers and claimant lawyers


'We are constantly being pushed through senseless hoops by some insurers who simply respond with prevarication upon prevarication. 'We either roll over and say "it's too difficult" and take the lowest offer. Or we say steel will meet steel, and if you want to fight you will get a disproportionate bill and that's not our fault,' Amanda Stevens, the new president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) told conference delegates in Brighton last week.



Fighting talk undoubtedly, but Stevens' words are also a clear warning that distrust and ill-feeling between lawyers on opposite sides of the personal injury divide - sentiments that peaked during the so-called 'costs wars' after conditional fee arrangements replaced legal aid provision for personal injury claims - are far from being consigned to history.



Throughout the conference, delegates and speakers alike continuously returned to concerns over how far defendants and claimant lawyers could realistically co-operate in the current climate. With the old battlegrounds of liability, proportionate costs and lengthy settlement times very much live issues, there are also new, emerging areas of dispute between claimant lawyers and defendants.



On the opening day of the conference barely 30 minutes had passed before concerns were voiced about third-party capture - a practice where insurers offer to represent would-be claimants who, for example, have had a vehicle ?collision with their policyholder, before the claimants take independent legal advice.



Michael Pace, conference speaker and partner at Midlands firm Andrew & Co, said issues surrounding third-party capture had 'got worse'. He added: 'Most people on the high street have not got a clue what their claim is worth. The problem will come 12 months later when they find their injuries are far more complex than they thought.'



Stevens herself insists there should be legislation that forces any insurer who engages in third-party capture to inform claimants they have a right to independent legal advice. 'It is not right for any business or profession to take advantage of a consumer by giving them one side of the story in a pressured situation,' she later told the Gazette.



One session focusing on how to spot and deal with fraudulent personal injury claims reiterated time and again that the insurance industry is now organising itself in an unprecedented manner and is set to tackle personal injury fraud - and pursue solicitors tied up with dishonest claims.



Adding to tensions, the government is due to publish its long-awaited paper on reforming personal injury claims track limits and processes - originally due at the beginning of this year but now to be published, according to the Ministry of Justice, 'as soon as possible'.



The reforms - as set out in the consultation paper published last year - centre on speeding up notification of claims, admission of liability and fixed fees. The notion that insurers would be able to admit liability swiftly - within 15 working days for road traffic accident cases and 30 working days in employers' and public liability cases - has been consistently greeted with considerable scepticism from the claimant side.



Pace said: 'Insurers, to date, can't stick to the current protocol agreement. How can we get them to stick to a much tighter timetable? How will they deal with claims in a much shorter period of time?'



David Fisher, a defendant lawyer for insurer Axa who also spoke at the conference, agreed that the new timeframes for admissions would be tough on insurers, but added: 'I would rather face this challenge and move to a system with greater transparency than we have currently got.'



He advocated imposing transparent, separate penalties for parties who fail to meet deadlines without reasonable grounds, but insisted they should not be subsumed into costs as at present and 'should benefit the consumer rather than the consumer's lawyer'. This suggestion, it is fair to say, raised more than a few eyebrows.



Greater commoditisation of legal services as a threat to the consumer was also discussed. Concerns were raised over how to ensure that, when non-lawyer shareholders are allowed to invest in firms following the full implementation of the Legal Services Act 2007, expected in 2012, too much attention to costs does not mean that consumers lose out in legal battles.



Stevens' year in the post may well prove to be pivotal, and will almost certainly be turbulent, and she was keen to rally the troops.



Ending her speech, she told delegates: 'Our cause is becoming ever more pressing, ever more urgent, in light of the recognised need for reforms to our claims systems and the mythical headlines attached to the views of some stakeholders. Stakeholders who are keen to see the process changed for their own ends, not those of the injured.



'We represent individuals in all their uniqueness. We do not represent commoditised goods such as baked beans with a computerised bar code attached to indicate price.'



It seems unlikely either side will be declaring 'peace in our time' just yet.



See Comment