Nicholas Bevan believes catastrophically injured claimants deserve better treatment from the insurance industry
The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Follett v Wallace [2013] EWCA Civ 146, [2013] All ER (D) 57 (Mar) should give practitioners pause for thought. This was one of those tragic catastrophic injury claims where the victim was left with extensive life-long care needs. Neither liability nor quantum was disputed. Both parties were agreed to part of the claimant’s compensatory entitlement being paid under a periodical payments order (PPO).
The dispute was over the terms of the proposed order. One of the sticking points was a term proposed by the compensating insurers that required the claimant to be subjected to regular medical examinations by the insurer’s medical experts for the rest of his life. What is singular about this condition was that this had nothing to do with the re-evaluation of the claimant’s compensatory needs and everything to do with the insurer’s financial interest in being able to monitor the claimant’s life expectancy, so it can review its reserves from
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
