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

3 assumptions:

1. Insurers generally know what they are doing. So, if insurers know their market, they will already be pricing in "discounts" for areas of work like immigration and crime that are highly unlikely to lead to significant claims for damages. They haven't been expecting any claims above any reduced minimum cover level anyway, so at best having a firm limit on cover just confirms their existing risk analysis.

2. For areas where top-up is needed, solicitors will still want to take out appropriate levels of cover; otherwise they face potential bankruptcy from any claim. I'm aware for example that when the discount rate changed and potential value of PI claims increased, firms looked at extending cover. So again, no saving from a reduction in the minimum cover. As others have said, probably just more expense and complications even for firms that just want retain the current level.

3. I strongly suspect that there will be a very large overlap between the firms that fail to get appropriate top-up cover and those firms that are more likely to get things wrong and need that cover.

If all of the above are reasonable assumptions, then the only conclusion is that this won't help anybody, and will only hurt clients or others seeking to make a claim.

Your details

Cancel