header-logo header-logo

Insurance fraud report “hijacked”

28 January 2016
Issue: 7684 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Apil claims Insurance Fraud Taskforce went far beyond its remit

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (Apil) has accused the government and insurance sector of “hijacking” a year-long review into insurance fraud.

The Insurance Fraud Taskforce (IFT) published its final report last week. Its recommendations include greater data sharing between the insurance sector and regulatory bodies through databases such as MyLicence. It proposed that recoverable costs be reduced by 50% where a minor personal injury claim is notified six months after the accident, a system of predictable damages for soft tissue injuries and a rebuttable evidential presumption that no injury was suffered where claims are lodged after a specified period of time.

Jonathan Wheeler, president of Apil, said he welcomed the opportunity to discuss the topic with “colleagues from the other side of the fence”.

He added, however, that it was “all the more disappointing that the outcomes of those discussions were seemingly not taken seriously by the Taskforce; that the Taskforce went far beyond its remit in its approach to issues such as the small claims limit and its recommendations to effectively cut legal representation for people whose claims are brought more than six months from the date of an injury”.

“The work of the Taskforce appears to have been hijacked by the agenda of the insurance industry and this government in its plans to do away with the rights of the genuinely injured to compensation,” he said.

However, insurance lawyers welcomed the proposals. Duncan Rutter, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL), says: “In particular FOIL supports the aim of encouraging the public to regard insurance fraud as a criminal activity.

“We hope these recommendations will gain widespread support, including from organisations supporting claimants and that going forward both claimant and defendant bodies can work together to tackle dishonest claims.”

Welcoming the report, the Association of British Insurers says it will do “whatever it takes to protect honest customers”.

Justice minister Lord Faulks said fraudulent and exaggerated claims must be tackled.

Issue: 7684 / 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