Report comment

I suspect that the economic impact argument is very much a double edged sword.

Insurers can happily agree that there is huge economic activity based on RTA PI work but they can just argue that it is, and that it merely demonstrates the size of, the problem.

They will argue that the amount of money derived from claims diverted into this “economic activity” is totally out of proportion to the value of this activity to society (which they will argue is negligible and / or in fact negative insofar as it is encouraging fraud) and that there is clearly so much money in this sector that the amounts involved of themselves provide evidence of a claims industry driven by a “claims culture” which needs to be addressed.

As I see it the most sensible arguments are based on 1) access to justice for claims for amounts of money the loss of which (if claims are not pursued) can have catastrophic effects on families and their finances (£5K is a lot of money if you are on the minimum wage, but not so much if you are a Lord Chancellor) and 2) the rise in CMC’s who will (probably) move in to fill the void.