header-logo header-logo

08 September 2011
Issue: 7480 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Claims controversy continues

Lawyers hit back at ABI accusations of excessive fees & manipulation

Claimant lawyers’ groups have hit back at insurers’ claims that they “manipulate” the system, charge “excessive” fees, and leave consumers worse off.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) made the accusations in a report published this week, which was backed by business groups and retailers including Lloyd’s and Argos.

The report, Tackling the Compensation Culture, said the number of personal injury claims received by insurers rose 72% between 2002 and 2010, and that people got more compensation, typically an extra £289, quicker if they dealt with an insurer rather than a lawyer.

It blamed the “have a go compensation culture” for rising motor insurance premiums and said the NHS paid out more than £257m in lawyers’ fees as a result of claims in 2010/2011. Fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims can easily be made, it said, while excessive legal costs sometimes exceed the level of damages. It adds that there is no financial incentive for claimants to ensure costs are reasonable, and referral fees increase costs without adding value.

In response Andrew Dismore, co-ordinator of the Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG) said: “Cases only go to court when the insurers deny liability or refuse to pay adequate compensation. The insurers have only themselves to blame for legal costs: if they accept liability and make early reasonable offers, then the costs are contained. The ABI is in overdrive in its well financed campaign to blame the public, lawyers, and the government for rises in insurance premiums: everyone but themselves. While the ABI routinely alleges fraud, the proven number of cases is comparatively small...and there is the other side of the coin, when insurers allege spurious or fraudulent defences to deny claimants rightful compensation. Although they complain about the impact of claims, the liability insurers have not indicated by how much they would reduce premiums, or even that premiums would be reduced at all, if the changes they demand are implemented. Indeed, there is evidence that premiums may actually increase.”

Des Hudson, the Law Society’s chief executive, said the ABI report was self-serving to the insurance industry. “Lawyers exist to ensure that people get their just compensation and are not manipulated by the insurance industry. Does anyone seriously believe that insurers would pay out claims unnecessarily?”

Issue: 7480 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll