Here is a common scenario. A car driver is negligent and a member of his family is injured as a result. His policy includes legal expenses insurance. The family member claims under the policy.

Sounds straightforward enough, but what if the same insurance company represen-tative acts for the driver and the family member? As solicitor for the family member you comply with your duty to provide all relevant information to the insurer, such as counsel's advice, and the representative reads and uses this on behalf of the driver, to your client's detriment.


It cannot happen, you say. Insurers must have Chinese walls to stop this sort of obvious conflict. Unfortunately, we have discovered that they do not. Among some insurers the practice seems to be rife.


The Court of Appeal in Sarwor v Alam suggested that, in these circumstances, the family member could enter into a conditional fee agreement (CFA). Why should they should have to do that? It may well mean buying a new insurance policy to support the CFA when they already had the benefit of a policy.


Surely, in such a conflict situation the insurers should pass at least one of the parties to a different insurance company to represent their interests.


Brian Barr, Brian Barr Solicitors, Manchester