There was nothing 'cloak and dagger' about the gathering of representatives from Britain's leading insurance firms, and lawyers who specialise in handling their claims, at a Mayfair hotel on Tuesday 29 March.There was nothing wrong, except perhaps na-vety, in the organisers, EuroForum, calling the conference 'Denying coverage' or with its front page description of its purposes as targeting and illustrating the various grounds for denial of coverage; the upside benefits and downside risks involved; and the assessment of the 'realistic and fair' utilisation of defences.There was certainly nothing wrong with the offerings of the seven solicitors and three barristers who addressed the hundred or so delegates in analysing the risks covered under insurance policies; the requirements of full disclosure; the difficulties of resisting fraudulent claims; and when and how to deny claims.Nor was the consumers' viewpoint and their rights to be paid on legitimate claims overlooked.

Emphasis was laid upon the importance of knowing when to say 'Yes' as opposed to 'No'.Nevertheless, two days ahead of the conference the Sunday Times 'Insight' team attacked it as being part of widespread evidence of unfair tactics among Britain's insurers as the industry seeks to wriggle out of its commitments.

Other newspapers - no doubt influenced by the Insight team's reputation for vigorous investigative journalism - quickly followed suit and the conference was ambushed by the press with television camera crews and representatives from newspapers clamouring for entry.They were all looking for information to support the Sunday Times conspiracy theory but were to be substantially disappointed and in some cases visibly bored when allowed to sit and listen to the conference proceedings.With one notable closed minded exception, all of the journalists wanted to interview a speaker and, at the request of the conference organisers, I spoke to them and they (including a member of the Insight team) appeared to accept that some at least of the central allegations made by the Sunday Times did not stand up to scrutiny.This realisation did not prevent follow-up stories focusing on yet more disappointed policy holders but it also caused a few respectable papers to conclude there was no story worth running.The 'crime', as was implied by the Sunday Times, was playing a part in the insurance industry's plan to claw back the losses of recent years and to return to profit by the following means:-- invalidating policies to avoid paying out;-- withdrawing insurance cover in high risk areas;-- using small print to reject legitimate claims; and-- judging the success of claims departments by the number of claims not paid.This is a nonsense.

In resisting claims where the full extent of the risk was improperly withheld from them or where claims fall outside the scope of the insurance contract or where fraud appears to have occurred, insurers are acting in the interests of their entire body of policy holders and the public at large.After all, every pound which they expend on undeserving claims adds to the premiums which every deserving policy holder will pay.What can be wrong about invalidating insurance policies where there are legal grounds for doing so and why should insurers not be able to rely upon what the Sunday Times describes as the 'small print'?Everybody knows that insurance policies run to more than a few sentences because they carefully describe the risk insured and often specifically identify what sort of claims are excluded.

This is done in the hope that policy holders will know, in advance of claims arising, what is covered and what is not.Policy holders often appear totally surprised when something which they ought to know was not insured, but for which they nevertheless present a claim, is refused.The criticisms regarding withdrawing insurance cover in high risk areas were not addressed at the conference but it must be remembered that there is a limit to what the low risk policy holder can be reasonably asked to pay in premium in order to subsidise the high risk individual.Why should a 50-year-old woman motorist pay more in premium just so a 17-year-old man can drive a high-performance car.

Insurers, in conducting their own businesses prudently, are surely entitled to decline the worst of risks.The suggestion that the success of claims departments within insurers is judged by the number of claims not paid is news to me and as someone who has acted for hundreds of insurers over the last 30 years I just do not believe it.Whilst it is newsworthy and a matter of regret that sometimes deserving claimants are refused or kept waiting too long by insurers there is no conspiracy to that end.The Insight team was naive to buy this sinister idea and, with other elements of the media, wrong in believing that there was anything improper in a routine legal/insurance conference.The media may have leaned too heavily upon the unsubstantiated views of a loss adjuster who, as a specialist representative of claimants, undoubtedly had his own axe to grind and who was well-placed to assist in locating disappointed claimants.Perhaps his help will no longer be needed now that the Sunday Times has invited its readers to write to them concerning any bad experiences they have had with car, house or health insurance.

No solicitation, I note, of letters from policy holders who feel they have been well- served by their insurers.No journalistic concern, so it seems, for an insurance industry beleaguered by enormous rises in fraudulent claims, which require resisting and as Names at Lloyd's complain about the excessive level of claim which they have to pay.

It is difficult to understand why this balanced view was missing from a wholly critical commentary on the insurance industry.All of us are consumers and welcome the media's championing of the individual but nevertheless expect newspapers to think twice before they go into battle against non-conspirators.Those of us asked to speak publicly on legal rights should be able to continue to do so without fear or favour.

With the lessons of 'Denying coverage' in mind we should take special care in presenting our advice in objective and non-partisan ways so that our purposes are not capable of being misunderstood.Likewise seminar literature should avoid inflammatory language.

Had 'Denying coverage' b een more neutrally described I wonder whether the Sunday Times and the rest of the media would have embarked upon such a wild goose chase.1994