I refer to the recent article on third-party capture and the comments of Henry Bermingham, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, to the effect that, if you want to eradicate it, 'the best means by which to do so is to reform the PI claims process and make it faster and more cost efficient' (see [2008] Gazette, 21 February, 24).


There are, of course, other ways to eradicate third-party capture. Make it illegal. Alternatively, make it compulsory for third-party insurers to advise the claimant in writing, in suitably clear terms, of the desirability, prior to settlement, of obtaining a medical report and obtaining the advice of a specialist personal injury solicitor. This could be combined with a cooling-off period of perhaps 14-28 days before any settlement could be finalised.



Equally, there would need to be effective prohibitions on misrepresentations by insurers, for example to the effect that the offer being made is more than it is worth, or that solicitors will routinely take a proportion of the damages. In reality, such prohibitions would be almost impossible to police and an outright ban would be more effective.



It may be that, as yet, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that third-party capture short-changes claimants. However, the anecdotal evidence, combined with the obvious conflict of interest, makes the case against it overwhelming.



I would like to ask Mr Bermingham if he would be happy for his Auntie Doris, or nephew Wayne, to be left to negotiate a settlement of their personal injury claim direct with a sophisticated insurer, when they have: no medical knowledge regarding the likely timescale for their recovery; no legal knowledge on which to base the value of their potential claim; and no way of knowing whether representations made to them by insurers - for example, 'solicitors will charge you a fortune' - are true or not. Would he really say to Auntie Doris: 'Don't worry Dot, sort it out yourself?'



Letting insurers deal with the public direct is like letting car salesmen unilaterally fix the price of second-hand cars. Of course, they would like to be able to do it, because it would make the process 'faster and more cost efficient', but is it in the public interest?



Peter Jones, Smith Jones, Kenilworth