header-logo header-logo

AXA pushes for whiplash reform

17 July 2013
Issue: 7569 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

PI lawyer calls into question insurance company’s appeal for MRI scans to diagnose whiplash

Insurance giant AXA has called for mandatory MRI scans in all whiplash claims and a time limit on the appearance of symptoms.

AXA’s whiplash report, launched this week at a roundtable co-hosted by Jack Straw MP and AXA claims director and author of the report, Chris Voller, analyses the factors behind claims volumes and insurance costs across several countries.

Voller recommended adoption of the French system’s requirement for objective proof such as an X-ray or an MRI scan, and noted that French insurance premiums are on average €410 (£356), compared to €681 (£592) in the UK.

He called for the introduction of time limits for the onset of symptoms, as happens in the Swedish system, where symptoms that appear more than 72 hours after the incident are generally rejected. The average premium in Sweden is €369 (£321).

Voller said these two measures “demonstrate several elements which could be adopted by the UK and that we believe would make a significant difference to the cost of premiums”.

However, claimant personal injury lawyer Phil Waters, of Camps Solicitors, says: “The insurance industry continually issues figures about how much whiplash claims allegedly add onto motor insurance policies every year.

“However no one appears to be questioning the numbers, and these numbers are nine years old and somewhat out of date. The reality is that, according to official government figures, the number of whiplash claims has fallen to a five year low, with 60,000 fewer claims last year.

“AXA’s report claims that MRI scans and x-rays will help diagnose whiplash. However Dr Andre Brittain-Dissont’s evidence to the Transport Select Committee asserted that MRI scans and x-rays would only show broken bones and would not show stretched or torn muscle, a key sign of whiplash.”

Waters said he would prefer that all accident claimants have an independent medical check to avoid insurers making pre-medical offers. He said the Law Society gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee that the difference between a first insurance company offer and a legally represented compensation offer was on average 247% in favour of the accident victim.

Issue: 7569 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll