Feud between claims solicitors and insurers
Details of the APIL convention have been released concerning the dispute between
claims solicitors and insurers.
Amanda Stevens, the new president of the Association of
Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) told conference delegates in Brighton last week, “We are constantly being pushed through senseless hoops by some insurers who simply respond with prevarication upon prevarication. ‘We either roll over and say, “It's too difficult” and take the lowest offer. Or we say steel will meet steel, and if you want to fight you will get a disproportionate bill and that's not our fault, “
These words are, for many, alarm bells that there is still much mistrust and dislike amongst the different types of personal injury lawyers, of which reached a climax during the ‘cost-wars' in which conditional fee arrangements took the place of legal aid provision for personal injury claims.
The conference was a great chance for people to express their ideas on how defendants and claimant lawyers could work alongside each other without the current friction. Volatile issues are those such as liability, proportionate costs and drawn-out settlement times, with more subjects expected to appear that would cause discord.
It only took 30minutes for issues with third party capture (when insurers offer their services to claimants who have yet to find independent legal advice) to be brought up on the first day of the conference.
One conference speaker and partner at Midlands firm Andrew & Co said the problems with third-party capture had ‘got worse'. He added: ‘most people on the high street have not got a clue what their claim is worth. The problem will come 12 months later when they find their injuries are far more complex than they thought.'
Steven believes new rules should be made that any insurer who attempts third-party capture should have to let claimant know that they can have independent legal advice also. She told the Gazette ‘It is not right for any business or profession to take advantage of a consumer by giving them one side of the story in a pressured situation.'
Another topic raised was how to notice fraudulent personal injury claims, and then deal with them correctly. The insurance industry is currently making rather secretive arrangements to tackle personal injury fraud and hunt down the dishonest solicitors.
Sources have said that the government plans to release a much-anticipated paper on personal injury claims reforms, track limits and processes, which was supposed to be presented at the beginning of the year but is, expected ‘as soon as possible' say the Ministry of Justice.
The reforms are expected to change things such as the pace of claims notification, admission of liability and fixed fees.
Many people from the claimant side are skeptical of these promises. One speaker mentioned, ‘Insurers, to date, can't stick to the current protocol agreement. How can we get them to stick to a much tighter timetable? How will they deal with claims in a much shorter period of time?'
One defendant lawyer for the insurer Axa, David Fisher is of the same opinion, though stated, ‘I would rather face this challenge and move to a system with greater transparency than we have currently got.'
He thought creating penalties for those who fail to meet deadlines without good reason would help, but that these ‘should benefit the consumer rather than the consumer's lawyer'.
Stevens ended her speech at the conference by telling delegates, ‘Our cause is becoming ever more pressing, ever more urgent, in light of the recognized need for reforms to our claims systems and the mythical headlines attached to the views of some stakeholders. Stakeholders who are keen to see the process changed for their own ends, not those of the injured.
‘We represent individuals in all their uniqueness. We do not represent commoditized goods such as baked beans with a computerized bar code attached to indicate price.'
Updated on 15/05/2008