Report comment

Anon 11:06 - Apologies if I came across harshly to you. My frustration was in part at your comment, but mainly at the overall coverage. For example, the alternative story to the Insurer's complaint that the rate is too low is simply that it has been too high for far too many years. The review dates back to 2010, and that (from memory) was only announced as JR proceedings were threatened/issued. APIL certainly did have to issue JR proceedings when that review went on for years.

I don't think that even the insurers are seriously suggesting that the rate of 2.5% was correct, so the only conclusion is that for many years Claimants have been undercompensated. Again, whether the announced rate of -0.75% is an overcorrection is another issue, but there has essentially no coverage of this alternative point of insurers historically paying too little.

Case in point: the headline of this article in the LS Gazette, which could be hoped to have a more balanced and deeper understanding of the issue than the latest ABI press release.