Report comment

So, this guy is seriously suggesting that a whole class of claims be barred because the ABI doesn't think they're justified. Sorry ABI, but direct payment for medical treatment does not make up for the loss of amenity and other traumas which can result from even the most 'minor' of injuries. Their proposal to sweep away common law principles for certain cases which they don't think deserve it is frankly ridiculous. The figures involved here are irrelevant - the bottom line is, where there is damage caused by negligence, the injured party should be compensated for the effect of the injury on their life.

To put it in perspective, let's consider what would happen if the ABI's proposals were applied to all PI claims. My brother spent 10 years severely brain damaged and physically incapacitated as a result of a pulmonary embolism due to clinical negligence. The ABI's approach would have led to him receiving no more than the medical treatment and residential care required to keep him alive - there would be no compensation for him losing his proper brain function, his quality of life, his future and his long-term health. The fact that we were able to fight for compensation for all this and win meant that he could receive life-enhancing treatments and therapies which made his much-reduced life as comfortable and happy as it could be.

Yes, I know my brother's case was not an RTA claim but the principles remain the same. We can't allow insurers to start chipping away at these principles for their own ends.

As a side note, does the ABI have any suggestions for who they would pay to provide the medical treatment meted out to successful claimants under their proposed system? It would presumably be the lowest common denominator, as a further means of keeping their profits up.