Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Thanks for that one Frank, as ever a well informed post. I shall have to ask my account how it is that she isn't insured.

And yes, I see now, s.37 is the right, or should that be wrong, section, the one that's caused all this trouble anyway.

And Raynor, interesting to read what Messrs. Slaughter and May did.

But are we getting to the point where the cost of our PII cover is in itself making us work so hard that the extra work required is in fact itself giving rise to (some of) the claims against our PII? Take a sole practitioner who does exclusively conveyancing. He charges £500 per transaction and completes 4 transactions per week, or 200 p a. These generate £100,000 therefore. But his PII premiums are £36,000, or £3,000 pc,, or £750 per week. If he did not have to purchase PII cover he could complete 3 transactions per week and make £75,000 as opposed to £54,000 (£100,000 - 36,000). . And then he could devote1/3 as much time to each transaction and make fewer, if any, mistakes. Or am I wrong in that assumption? Was there such a catastrophic level of negligence pre-s.37? Was half the population of England and Wales running around with unmet breach of contract claims? What about uninsured insurers? Uninsured pier kiosk retailers, Punch and judy ventriloquists? Where do we stop? At this rate one half of the country will end up suing the other half! What ever happened to looking out for yourself?

Your details

Cancel