All About Law | Training Contracts | Vacation Schemes | Law School | Law Careers

My rant this week is about certain insurers who just can’t get their act in order and run up costs needlessly.  I’ve got a case where a certain group of insurers have employed tactics where they will not increase on £2000 for a 12 month whiplash.  I’ve made them an offer £300 more than this and they are refusing to pay and so I’m, off to court to argue on an assessment of damages hearing that it’s worth more than their £2k offer. 

Assuming I win (12 month whiplash is worth up to £2750 so I had better, otherwise I’ll be losing my touch), then because the client is on a CFA, my costs will be in the region of £4k plus VAT and disbursements.  Had the insurer paid my client £2300 when I offered it then my costs would have been £1417.50 plus VAT and disbursements.  Why couldn’t the insurer just pay my client that little bit extra and avoid all this agro from the start?

I’ve been asked to appear on a Radio 4 programme about this very type of issue on Thursday so it’ll be interesting to see if I can persuade the interviewer that it is clearly the insurers pushing up costs rather than claimant’s solicitors and it’s a shame I won’t be able to use the above case as an example as I’m not due in court before Thursday. 

I do get exasperated with insurers not responding quickly because if they did then not only would my costs be lower but, for instance, if they paid write-off cheques quicker then the hire would reduce.  Or if they spoke to their clients and witnesses over the phone they would be able to make quicker admissions of liability.  However, on the latter, the rule changes for next April should hopefully bring about admissions earlier which is all the better for our clients (I just hope it works).