Report comment

I think we all need to remember fundamental dishonesty and If there is minimal damage insurance companies raise LVI even if a claimant is a child. Dare I say all cases can now be lost including rear end shunts. Liability could be admitted but the litigation friend exaggerates an element of specials and the case is lost. All pi cases need ATE if no BTE insurance is in place. For these reasons alone. It protects a client child against the defence antics and is simply essential in the world we now practice in. It should always be recoverable subject to being reasonable in is amount. I agree that insurance companies cover cases across the board and the way things are going they will be wiped out if we all select cases which have high risk, or it will simply become too expensive. to get ATE. Is that what the courts want for claimants including children in the future. Someone mentioned an older case where the 5% succees fee for rear end shunts was suggested but don't forget fundamental dishonesty provisions must surely increase this 5% to a higher figure.