Nov 30

After the Event Insurance & The Jackson Consultation

Posted in After The Event Insurance, Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

We have our auditors in today so I shall be brief – I keep getting asked to count paperclips etc.

OK where were we with the consultation. Oh yes - item no. 6:

6. Page 28 (The Consultation): talking about success fees and CFAs – “..it is also argued that these costs [i.e. the success fees the defendant's have to pay] are reflected in the guideline hourly rates, published by the Master of the Rolls.” In other words, the defendants argue there shouldn’t be any success fees as these are already incorporated into the taxable court recoverable rates. So that would be the recoverable rates in fixed fees would it – the ones which were agreed by the defendant insurers in the ‘Big Tent’ meetings with er, a success fee on top. Talk about changing their minds.

7. Page 31 (ATE Insurance): “If the action is lost, the [After the Event Insurance] premium is not payable. If the case is won, then a slightly larger amount (to pay for premiums which are not paid in lost cases) is recovered from the losing opponent.” Who told Sir Rupert that? The defendants? We have never heard of such a thing. The premium is the same win or lose – if it were cheaper if you lost, I suspect the defendants would have challenged it by now. More mud slinging I suspect.

8. Page 32 (ATE Insurance): “He [Sir Rupert] proposes that the test [qualified one way costs shifting] should operate restrictively, so that claimants are only exceptionally required to meet the defendant’s costs, and therefore ATE insurance is effectively unnecessary to cover that risk. He also suggests that the judge should consider at the end of the claim whether to make a costs order, and if so should determine the amount summarily.” Brilliant! Claimants can make claims without knowing for sure whether or not they are going to have to pay the defendant’s costs – reminds me of another system. Oh yes, it’s what we have at the moment except now the costs liability follows the loser. Sir Rupert proposes that claimants try to second guess the judge. Will claimants really want to take this risk?

9. Page 48 (The proposed Rule on QOCS): “Claimants may also lose their costs protection in those cases where the parties are on an equal financial footing, for example where the defendant is not insured, or where the claimant is a large company or is conspicuously wealthy.” Interesting. So if a defendant fails to take out insurance, they benefit from having the chance to obtain costs from the claimant. Also, we have that phrase ‘Conspicuously wealthy’ again. Better define that one carefully Sir Rupert. Is that spare cash or assets? What about mortgages or loans – are they taken into account? Who is going to assess all of this – the overworked courts?

10. Page 60 (Alternative Package 1 – Fixed Recoverable Success Fees): “Recoverable success fees have so far been fixed in the areas of litigation where the volume of claims is high and where there is a relatively small number of large defendants (e.g. insurance companies) from which data can reasonably easily be gathered.” Says it all really. The Ministry of Justice has been relying on the data provided by defendant insurance companies. Do they not think that this is a little unfair and could be skewed?

Right – I have been told by the bean counters to stop now. They are saying something about pens – or it could be hens. Not sure. 

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 29

Caselaw Review: Avril v Boultby – After the Event Insurance taken out post admission is recoverable

Posted in After The Event Insurance, After The Event Insurance

The Issue: Liability had been admitted from the outset in a road traffic accident. Could an After the Event Insurance premium taken out after that admission, be recovered?

Held: The Defendant in the case had attempted to rely on the often quoted dicta from Master Hurst in the Claims Direct Test Cases ( [2002] EWHC 9002 (Costs) – Para.223). The Senior Costs Judge however decided that, six years on, Master Hurst would most likely have come to a different conclusion when considering the risks in personal injury cases faced by today’s claimants.

There were several real risks which could result in the claimant having to pay adverse costs after an admission namely:

  1. The admission being withdrawn
  2. Adverse costs awarded on an interlocutory hearing
  3. Disbursements being disallowed
  4. The claimant failing to beat a Part 36 offer.

It was considered that these were real risks which clearly came within those identified by Section 29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and therefore they should be insured against, even after an admission of liability. In line with the reasoning in Callery v Gray, a solicitor should not ‘wait and see’ but should take out After the Event Insurance on all claims from the outset of a case or as soon as possible thereafter, notwithstanding an admission of liability.

Comment: This can be seen as a practical application of the reasoning laid out in Callery v Gray and should at last put to rest the challenges of ATE Insurance premiums made by defendant insurers where liability has been admitted.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 25

Jackson Analysis and After the Event Insurance

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

I sold my running machine on Ebay for £30.99 last night. The hill function had broken and I (strangely) like running up hills.

So thank goodness for the Jackson Report Consultation document. It’s like climbing K2 only less straight forward. Here are some examples:

  1. Page 4 (Ministerial Statement): “Some defendants have complained that the disproportionate costs of defending claims against them mean that they are denied effective access to justice”…. and Jackson proposes qualified one way costs shifting which means defendants will not get their costs if they win (apart from the odd exception) but will have to pay the claimant’s costs if they lose. How does that shift the costs burden back to ‘an even keel’?
  2. Page 7 (Executive Summary): “He [Jackson] also argues that access to justice is not just about allowing claimants to bring reasonable actions, but also about ensuring that defendants can resist those claims which should not succeed, without being liable for disproportionate costs”… a lovely soundbite but blown out of the water by qualified one way costs shifting (QOWCS). If QOWCS is brought in, claims will increase (see MoJ’s own impact assessment) and it is likely that defendants will find it cheaper to simply pay off claims rather than defending them because even if they win, they won’t get their costs.
  3. Page 8 (Executive Summary): “QOWCS would offer costs protection to the vast majority of personal injury claimants, with their only having to pay a winning defendant’s costs where it is reasonable to do so based on the claimant’s own wealth or their reasonable behaviour during the case.” ….welcome to satellite litigation central. Who is going to determine the wealth of individuals (we presume similar to the current system of oral examinations)? What will be considered to be the cut off point – if you own your own house? If you have a job? Claimant’s want certainty not a system where they don’t know until the end whether or not they are going to face a bill for the defendant’s costs. I presume the defendant will want this as well – it may lead to them fighting rich people’s cases but paying out for poor ones as more cost efficient. Very Bolshevik.
  4. Page 15 (The Consultation): “The recommendations are of course Sir Rupert’s. It should be noted, however, that in some areas the Government has suggested refinements in considering the implementation of these recommendations.”… or in other words – the Government does not agree that some of the Jackson recommendations will work so have changed them. Hmmmm.
  5. Page 24 (The Consulation): Defendants argue “CFAs have been blamed for fuelling a ‘compensation culture’ by encouraging people to pursue weaker claims at absolutely no cost to them in the hope that a defendant may make a commercial decision to pay the claimant off by settling rather than defending the claim, at potentially much greater financial risk.”…isn’t this precisely what qualified one way costs shifting will do? There will be no risk at all to claimants (at least now After the Event Insurers analyse the claims and only cover them if there are prospects of success). There will be an explosion of speculative claims and defendants will find it cheaper to pay them off early rather than fight. Mention is then made of Lord Young’s report but no mention of course that he concluded that there wasn’t a compensation culture – it was just the media causing the problem.

Right – I now have a day off – back on Monday. Don’t worry – there are plenty more holes in the proposals. The Government has a mountain to climb. Which reminds me….

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 23

Caselaw Review: Aktas v Adepta (2010) – Issuing second claim form after limitation is not an abuse of process

Posted in Practice & Procedure

The Issues: These were conjoined appeals where the Claimants had issued proceedings towards the very end of the limitation period but the cases were then struck out because of their solicitors failure to serve the Claim Forms within the 4 month period allowed under the CPR. The Claimants then issued fresh proceedings, relying on s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980, but was this an abuse of process?

Held: The Defendant ‘s central submission was that a failure to serve in time in the first action is so serious a misuse of procedure and is so strictly regarded as an act of disrespect to the court that the second claim must be struck out without reference to the s.33 discretion. However, the Claimants’ argued this had never been the case in any of the numerous cases which had considered the problem previously and would be putting the clock back to before the recent House of Lords decision in Horton v Sadler (2006). It is important to note that although the Claimants, through their solicitors, had been at fault for failing to serve their claim forms within the required time, this was the only breach of a court rule and the Defendants had been well aware of the claims before the error had occurred, and had admitted liability. Lord Justice Rix explained that the issue was a tension of, on the one hand the strictness of the rules of court with regard a failure to serve a claim form in time, and on the other hand the statutory concession which Parliament has allowed PI claimants who fail to issue their claims within the limitation period. The s.33 discretion is wide and traverses all the circumstances of the case, but is largely determined by the question of prejudice to the parties. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Defendants argument that to issue a second claim form in these circumstances is an abuse of process failed [para 89]. A “mere” negligent failure to serve a claim form in time has never been held to be an abuse of process, although a single negligent oversight to serve in time (i.e. a “mere” negligent failure) is distinguishable from other cases where there is an inordinate or inexcusable delay, intentional default or a wholesale disregard for the rules [para 90]. The Court therefore allowed both appeals and set aside the orders for striking out the Claimants second actions, although the s.33 discretion point was to be decided as a separate issue.

Comment: Clearly a very useful case and a sensible decision which finally abolishes the previous contradiction that a claimant was in a better position by failing to issue proceedings within the limitation period than by issuing proceedings in time, but then failing to serve the proceedings within the 4 month period allowed. However, a court may consider an inordinate or inexcusable delay is an abuse of process and so a fresh claim should issued without delay on a solicitor discovering that the time for service of a claim form has elapsed.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 22

MoJ Think Jackson Reform will Increase Number of Claims

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

The Ministry of Justice has issued an impact assessment (www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/ia-qualified-one-way-costs-shifting.pdf) in which they admit for the first time that they believe one way costs shifting will increase the number of claims made for compensation – and I quote ‘It is assumed the proposal would increase the volume of cases pursued by claimants and this increase might be significant’.

This is obviously bad news for the defendant insurance industry with the ABI having already expressed their opposition to one-way costs shifting for this very reason.

It seems that we were therefore right all along if one way costs shifting is brought in (see http://www.aftertheeventinsuranceblog.co.uk/personal_injury_claims/lord-young-review-government). The increased number of claims will place a greater burden on defendants and will completely wipeout or even exceed the savings being proposed. It also seems that little research has been carried out of the impact of the changes and no systems are in place to monitor any changes once made.

This assessment clearly flies in the face of Lord Young’s Health and Safety review - small businesses will be affected and the Daily Mail will have a field day.

Surely the Government are going to see sense and kick this part of the Jackson report into the dust?

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 19

The Financial Impact to the Goverment of the Jackson Reforms

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

I was invited to attend a quiz in a local pub last night by a friend. There were nine of us in the team. I think I had been brought in to shore up a perceived weakness in answering questions about After the Event Insurance (ATE insurance) but sadly, none came up. I did get one right about W.C. Fields though (‘By what name was William Claude Dukenfield better known’).

Anyway, to business.

I promised some further analysis of the MoJ consultation document but I think I would like to analyse the financial impact in terms of lost revenue to the Government first – so here goes:

  • There were 878,000 claims registered with the Compensation Recovery Unit in the period 2009/10 (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/other-specialists/compensation-recovery-unit/performance-and-statistics/performance-statistics/ )
  • During the same period the CRU recovered £154,784,443.56 in treatment charges, so an average of £176 per case.
  • In 2008, After the Event insurance premiums totalling £96m were sold. Of these, it is estimated that £80m related to personal injury claims. The number of claims increased by 9% between 2009 and 2010 (that’s due to the recession not the ‘Compensation Culture’) so applying this increase to premiums gives us £88m of ATE insurance premiums. That’s £100 per case (it is low of course because After the event insurance won’t be purchased in every claim). Insurance premium tax (IPT) of  £4.4m was earned on these premiums. The IPT rate is going up to 6% in January.
  • Fixed costs for motor claims are £1200 plus 12.5% success fee for the straightforward matters – a total of £1350. VAT on these costs totals £236.25 (soon to be £270 when the rate goes up)
  • In 2009 the UK Motor insurance market generated £9.8 Billion in premiums. Taking into account non-motor premiums, the total is heading towards £20 Billion.

So now let’s make some assumptions and see what the loss is to the Government:

  • Let’s assume the After the Event Insurance premium is no longer recoverable. We believe this will result in fewer Personal Injury claims as  it will put off claimants making a claim – ATE Insurance premiums may still be available but as they won’t be purchased very often (only on the risky cases), the premiums will rise. This will have an upward spiralling effect and will reduce the number of claims. We estimate there will be a reduction in claims of  between 10% and 15% (let’s say 12.5%)
  • That’s 109,750 fewer claims
  • (This is a good one) As a result of fewer claims, motor and non-motor insurance premiums in the market will reduce by 5%

The loss to the Government in revenue will be:

Compensation Recovery Unit Recoveries (lower claims x £176)   £19,316,000
VAT on solicitors’ costs  (lower claims x £270)   £29,632,500
Tax on solicitors’ costs assuming 20% profit & 40% Tax   £11,853,000
Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) on ATE Insurance Premiums (£88m @ 6% IPT)     £5,280,000
IPT on lower Motor & Non Motor Premiums (5% of £20bn x IPT @ 6%)   £60,000,000
Total Income Loss to Government £126,081,500

So that’s a conservative £126m each year lost in tax revenue. When you consider that this is over a third of the saving they are trying to make to legal aid, you realise how significant this is. Putting it another way, they could keep the Personal Injury claims system as it is, avoid all of the cost of changing it, and only make 64% of their planned cuts to legal aid.

Critics to this analysis will point out that the £60m I have allocated in reduced IPT from Motor and Non-Motor insurance sales is unlikely to happen. Some will say the big insurers won’t be dropping their prices following the reduction in claims but will simply make more profit instead and pass it on to their shareholders. That’s just cynical.

So back to the quiz – we came third. Out of er, five teams, losing to a team called ‘Man in the corner’ consisting of, yep, an old man sitting on his own in the corner.  Oh deary me.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 17

More SRA rumours – trouble for not taking out After the Event Insurance

Posted in General

As a welcome relief to reading the Consultation Paper, further rumours from the grapevine.

Looks like the SRA may have the bit between their, er teeth regarding client risk.  We have today heard a rumour that another firm, this time in the midlands, has got into trouble for leaving clients high and dry with regard to adverse costs and own disbursements. The firm in question didn’t take out any After the Event insurance and, to keep the cases, failed to apply to any relevant BTE provider either (their argument was that they knew what they were doing and After the Event Insurance (ATE insurance) was too complicated). They relied upon their considerable expertise but didn’t explain all of the risks the client was facing by them not taking out after the event insurance (they obviously haven’t heard about Adris v Royal Bank of Scotland either).

…and they are a big firm – doing 100 cases a month. Assuming claims take 18 months on average to settle, and a potential downside of say, £8,000 per case if lost, that’s a risk portfolio of £14,400,000 (100 x 18 months x £8000). I wonder if the partners thought about it that way.

Anyway, they are now looking for ATE Insurance policies and are having to write to all of their clients to explain what has happened (so I suspect some clients will now lose confidence and jump ship). Oh yes, and the partners are facing disciplinary proceedings.

You have been warned.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 16

I’ve just read the consultation paper

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

…and now have a headache. It’s 90 pages long (101 if you include the list of questions at the back) and a bit of a strange beast. If it were an animal, I would say it would be a duck billed platypus – a bit of a muddle.

There is a lot to digest in particular of course the proposals concernting After the Event Insurance (ATE Insurance) but the overall impression is that, just like a playground gossip, the Government supports Lord Jackson’s report in a loud voice but then, when his back is turned, whispers that they aren’t all that happy with quite a lot of it (indeed they have been forced to suggest some of their own alternatives to his proposals). Which is strange because there are a number of ministerial statements supporting the report in full not least Lord Young and his analysis of the ’Compensation Culture’.

It is going to take quite a few days to analyse and report back but we have until Valentine’s Day to do it so do bear with me.

My prepartions to take my wife away for a romantic weekend can wait.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 16

Ministry of Justice Consultation is Launched

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

As expected, the Ministry of Justice has launched its consultation into personal injury claims (including their proposals concerning After the Event Insurance) and has issued a detailed consultation document. All submissions must be made by the 14th February (don’t you just love them). We have downloaded the files for you so you can obtain them here:

Good luck.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 15

The Jackson Report & ATE Insurance

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

When I was at school, I used to take in sandwiches for lunch but on Tuesdays, as a ‘special treat’, I was able to have school dinners. I thought this was a money saving exercise by my mother but it may actually have been to save me from the poor quality of school meals. Anyway, I actually used to look forward to Tuesdays (it was always chips and spam (!) fritters followed by spotted dick and custard) until one day they changed the menu. Instead of spam fritters, I was faced with some grey looking meat with gravy.

‘What’s that?’ I asked the cook. She looked at me sheepishly then replied ‘ox tongue’.

I just had the chips that day. So did everyone else.

The next Tuesday came around and I lined up again for lunch expecting that spam fritters would be back on the menu but no, the grey meat appeared again (probably the same bits).

I started asking around to see who actually liked ox-tongue, and found none of the students did and neither did any of the teachers I spoke to. The next week I asked the cook and she said it was a pain to cook and no one liked it but they had been told ‘from above’ to put it on the menu.

So how does this relate to the Jackson Report? Well, on 11th November, Lord Justice Jackson spoke at the Birmingham Law Society Conference on ‘The Lord Jackson Costs Debate’. His speech consisted of telling the audience that he was right, his report should be instigated in full and that no one should challenge his proposals.

Then the rest of the speakers had their turn…

Nick Starling from the ABI (who represent the defendant insurers) generally agreed with Jackson but did not like one-way costs shifting (and therefore getting rid of After the Event Insurance) which is at the heart of the proposals. Anthony Hughees (ex-Foil president) then spoke and didn’t agree with Jackson, nor did John Spencer from MASS, Michael Lent from Temple nor Crispin Passmore from the Legal Services Board.

Basically, no one likes tongue being on the menu except those ‘from above’ who won’t have to eat it.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 12

Feedback & The Jackson Report

Posted in Personal Injury Claims, The Jackson Report

Ouch – I have just had a friend of mine comment that, although my blogs seem professional, I need to sex them up a bit. So here goes….

er, the Jackson report is a threat not only to the rights of individuals to have access to justice but also to the livelihoods of many solicitors, referrers and (you guessed it), After the Event Insurance providers up and down the country. Prior to the election, the Conservatives commented that they didn’t intend to muck around with the Personal Injury Claims system but then, what do you know, as soon as they get in, it is full steam ahead with the proposals. Or is it?

Our reading of recent press comments, in particular from Parliamentary Under Secretary Jonathan Djangoly seem to indicate that the Government doesn’t now intend to bring in the Jackson recommendations in full. We think this relates to abandoning one way cost shifting because, if this is brought in, defendants will become even more risk adverse (see blog ‘Getting cold feet’). However, as Jonathan Djangoly is running the show regarding the proposals, perhaps we should mention his background and you can then make up your own mind as to how far he will go.

Did you know that Jonathan Djangoly is a solicitor and from 1998 to 2009, a Corporate Finance Parter at city firm S J Berwin LLP. S J Berwin’s clients include (and this is the sexy bit) the Co-Operative Insurance Society (or CIS Insurance to you and me) and Axa Private Equity (linked of course to Axa Insurance). The firm even provided a trainee solicitor on secondment to work in Westminster with Mr Djangoly.

How concerned about the man in the street (or on the Clapham omnibus) do you think he will be?

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 12

Caselaw Review: Callery v Gray: After Event Insurance Recovery

Posted in After The Event Insurance

The Issues: The House of Lords considered at what stage in a personal injury claim is it appropriate for a solicitor to enter into a CFA and for an After the Event Insurance policy to be purchased. Additionally, was a 20% success fee (reduced from 60% at previous hearings) reasonable in the particular circumstances of this road traffic accident, where the Claimant was a passenger in a car which had been hit in the rear by the Defendant’s vehicle.

Held: Their Lordships refused to interfere with the findings of the Court of Appeal in Callery –v- Gray (No.1) (2001) and Callery –v- Gray (No.2) (2001), which had rejected a “wait and see” approach in relation to entering into a CFA. The Defendant’s suggestion that After the Event Insurance should be purchased only when proceedings were issued, was also rejected. The “basket” approach to After the Event Insurance was approved, so that the premiums recovered on straightforward cases with negligible risk of adverse costs, pay for lost cases. Where a reasonable uplift was agreed and After the Event Insurance at a reasonable premium was taken at the outset of a claim, the costs of each were recoverable from the Defendant.

Callery –v- Gray (No.1) : if a “wait and see” approach was adopted, liability for success fees would be borne in much larger amounts by those unsuccessful defendants who persisted in contesting liability. This would not result in an equitable sharing of costs between unsuccessful defendants. ATE Insurance premiums also benefited defendants as they ensured payment of the defendant’s costs when a claimant was unsuccessful. Premiums taken out at an early stage were substantially cheaper than when it was known that the defendant was going to contest liability. Further, it would assist access to justice for solicitors to offer legal services where claimants will not pay costs whatever the circumstances. The success fee was reduced from 40% to 20%, which was reasonable taking into account the information known at the beginning of the claim.

Callery –v- Gray (No.2) : the court was only concerned with whether the premium was a reasonable price to pay for the benefits it purchased and the Court would take into account evidence of the current ATE Insurance market from sources such as “Litigation Funding” magazine, but satellite litigation on the subject would be unsatisfactory . Master O’Hare, considered the evidence of the relationship between the ATE Insurance premium, the risk and the cost of alternative cover, and assessed that a premium of £350 (exclusive of IPT) was reasonable.

Comment: The Court approved the purchase of an After the Event Insurance policy at the very beginning of a case even where the Claimant in this case had the least possible risk of adverse costs – the Claimant was a passenger in a car whose driver had been subject to a “rear shunt”.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 11

It’s an APP Jim, but not as we know it

Posted in General

Actually it’s a bookmark but it gives you direct access to our After the Event Insurance blog from your iPhone homescreen.

To set it up, use Safari to access www.aftertheeventinsuranceblog.co.uk then click on the ‘+’ symbol at the bottom of the screen and then select ‘Add to Home Screen’. You will now have a Box Legal Icon for the ATE Insurance blog on the move.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 10

Firm reprimanded by SRA for not taking out After the Event Insurance

Posted in After The Event Insurance

Hot on the heels of the case of Adris v Royal Bank of Scotland, we have today heard a rumour that a firm in the North West (we won’t narrow it down any more so as to protect the er, guilty) has been reprimanded by the SRA following one of their regional visits. The firm in question used to pick and choose which cases to insure with their After the Event Insurance provider (generally just the risky ones) leaving the remaining cases without any ATE Insurance cover. The SRA officer asked to see the solicitor’s letter to all clients who didn’t have any ATE Insurance or BTE Insurance which explained the financial risks the clients would face if the client lost (or failed to beat a Part 36 offer).

Guess what? There weren’t any.

The moral of this tale? If there is no definite BTE policy in place then take out After the Event Insurance straight away or write a very carefully worded letter to the client to tell them why you think they face no risks at all of adverse costs in any circumstances.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 10

ATE Insurance Blog now available on your mobile

Posted in General

I am pleased to announce that you can now keep up with the latest Personal Injury and After the Event insurance news on the move.

This blog is now available on your smart phone – go to www.aftertheeventinsuranceblog.co.uk and have a look….

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 10

Caselaw Review: Able UK Ltd v Reliance Security Services Limited – No need to get more than one quote for ATE Insurance

Posted in After The Event Insurance

The Issues: In a successful contractual claim the Claimant claimed the cost of an After the Event Insurance policy in the sum of £63,000 (inc of IPT), being 30% of the indemnity provided under the terms of the policy. The Claimant’s solicitors had obtained one quote for ATE Insurance cover. The Defendants argued that the premium was excessive and there had been a lack of investigation as to the availability of a reasonable insurance premium. Should the Claimant’s solicitors have obtained more than one quote for legal expense cover?

Held: In all the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Claimant to pay an ATE Insurance premium based on 30% of cover. The Claimant’s solicitors had considerable experience of the ATE market and the Defendants did not prove that a more suitable alternative premium was available. The Claimant had made a reasonable choice of ATE Insurance cover and to insist that he should have gone in search of alternative insurers would fail to have regard to the overriding objective, specifically CPR 1.1(2)(b) and (c)

Comment: Even with this very large premium, the Court ruled that so long as the premium was generally reasonable and broadly comparable to the market, it was not necessary to obtain more than one quotation for After the Event Insurance. It follows that this must apply even more so, where much smaller premiums are involved.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 9

Berezovsky v Abramovich – Most expensive ATE insurance ever?

Posted in After The Event Insurance

Addleshaw Goddard solicitors have announced that they have entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement with the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky to pursue his claim against Chelsea FC owner and fellow oligarch, Roman Abramovich.

The firm’s decision is a brave one and a gamble but, if the case is won, Addleshaw’s will be in line for a huge success fee of many millions of pounds (some say £30m+!) on top of their normal fees.  The case is worth a potential $3.5bn and involves a claim that Abramovich forced Berezovsky in 2000-2003 to sell shares in the Sibneft oil company, the Rusal aluminum company and the TV channel ORT at lower than market prices.

The key thing here is that Berezovsky isn’t exactly poor – he can quite afford to pay his (huge) legal bills and so this is a significant shift in the way that large law firms are viewing these sort of cases.

…and guess what is securing all of this? That’s right, an After the Event Insurance policy has been purchased which will pay out if Berezovsky loses. So what sort of ATE Insurance premium is needed to cover potential adverse costs of £50m+? Well, this is being kept secret but it is rumoured to be in the region of £20m! 

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 8

What happens when you lose a case?

Posted in After The Event Insurance

When you lose a case you kiss goodbye to your legal costs under a CFA but your client is still responsible for your disbursements and, worse still, the other party’s full legal costs. Was your client fully aware of this risk? Our examination of some client ‘Rule 15′ letters reveal that clients are often left in the dark about their risks if they were to lose their claim.

If you have failed to advise your client fully about the risks of going to court and offer them After the Event Insurance, then get your cheque book out and prepare to fill in a claim under your Professional Indemnity insurance policy (and as most claims come within the deductible/excess, in reality this means you pay). If have done the right thing and  purchased an ATE Insurance policy for your client then the battle will now really begin!

We have heard many stories of firms struggling to deal with the aftermath of a lost case whereby their ATE Insurance Provider has called for and examined the solicitor’s file in an attempt to ‘avoid’ paying. Many times we have been told by solicitors that, after a long battle with the ATE insurer, the insurer has pointed to ‘catch all’ policy terms to avoid paying claims. A classic is the term ‘the claim must have 60% or more prospects of success’. Of course it is easy for an insurer to point to this clause after the claim has been lost and say – ‘see – it can’t have had sufficient prospects as a Judge has found against your client.’ How do you fight that one? Well – with difficulty. We don’t think you should have to – I mean why would a firm risk spending all that time on a claim which they thought was rubbish? A Conditional Fee Agreement by definition should weedle out poorer cases as a solicitor doesn’t want to risk working for nothing. The time you spend battling with your After the Event Insurance provider isn’t productive (you can’t bill it!) and worse,  the defendant solicitor rarely sits back and waits patiently to receive the underwriter’s money – they threaten enforcement. What you need is an insurance policy that pays out and pays out quickly.

The underwriter we use has a solution to this fiasco – they let the solicitor decide if a case has prospects or not. If a case is lost, they don’t ask for the file but simply for the solicitor to list the items they need to claim. Once submitted, the underwriter sends a cheque in settlement within 7 days.

If only other insurance were so simple….

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 5

Caselaw Review: Sarwar v Alam – After the Event Insurance for passenger claims

Posted in After The Event Insurance, Before The Event Insurance

The Issues: The Claimant was a passenger in a car and purchased an After the Event insurance policy in order to claim personal injury against the Defendant driver. At detailed assessment the Defendant’s insurers produced for the first time the Defendant’s Before The Event (“BTE”) insurance policy which would have covered the Claimant’s claim.

(1) When should an existing BTE policy generally be used in preference to an ATE Insurance policy?
(2) Should the Claimant passenger have used the Defendant driver’s BTE policy?
(3) What was the extent of the BTE enquiries a Claimant solicitor should normally make for any personal injury claimant?

Held:
(1) In the ordinary course of events a claimant making a straightforward modest RTA claim (i.e. less than £5,000) should use any pre-existing BTE policy they know of (para. 51), even though the claimant will probably have to use a BTE panel solicitor, and not the solicitor of their choice. This was not so for complex, specialist or more serious claims. It was therefore reasonable for take out an After the Event insurance policy.

(2) It was important that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. The Claimant was not obliged to use the Defendant’s BTE insurance policy because (as with most such policies), it provided that the Defendant’s insurers would retain full conduct and control of the claim which was unreasonable since they were the same organisation against whom the claim was being made. (para. 54). NB. The position might be different if a defendant insurer were to finance a transparently independent BTE insurer to handle claims.

(3) The Court recommended that a solicitor should normally send a standard letter, asking his client to bring to an initial interview any motor or household insurance belonging to either themselves or their spouse/partner and any union membership or stand alone legal expenses insurance either of them might have. Searches should be proportionate to the amount at stake and the solicitor was not obliged to embark upon a “treasure hunt” nor check policies attached to credit cards. In addition, if the claimant was a passenger and there appeared to be no possibility of a claim against the driver, then the solicitor should ask the client to bring a copy of the driver’s motor insurance policy. (paras.45-50)

Comment:
(1) This case relates to a claim where the CFA was entered into before the Conditional Fee and Collective Conditional Fee Regulations 2000 were enacted, but it certainly applied to the duty to make BTE enquiries once those regulations were enacted, and continues to apply. Prior to November 2005 (when those regulations were repealed), if a defendant could show that BTE enquiries had not been carried out in accordance with the regulations, then no valid CFA had been created and the claimant’s costs would be entirely disallowed. After November 2005, many of the requirements which had been in the Regulations were instead included in the Solicitors Code of Conduct. A breach of the Code will not normally invalidate a CFA, Garbutt & Anor v Edwards & Anor (2000), and accordingly if a solicitor fails to carry out BTE enquiries then costs should now remain recoverable provided the CFA was signed on or after 1 November 2005.

(2) For CFAs signed after November 2005, the claimant’s costs will not be disallowed, but a failure to follow the guidelines will still result in an inability to recover a success fee and an ATE Insurance premium, (unless the case is within the fixed costs regime and the 12.5% fixed success fee then remains recoverable – see Kilby v Gawith (2008).

(3) Where there is a suspicion that a CFA is unenforceable because of a failure to comply with the pre 1 November 2005 Regulations (eg. to properly investigate the possibility of BTE insurance), the recent case of Forde v Birmingham CC (2009) may be relevant. Here the High Court allowed recovery of costs under a second, retrospective, CFA, which was entered into because of doubts over the validity of the first CFA.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 5

Why don’t solicitors take out ATE Insurance for all of their PI claims?

Posted in After The Event Insurance

With my colleague, Simon Pinner, I used to run a large claimant PI department so I have some experience at the coal face. Our perception of After the Event Insurance available at the time was that it was a pain to apply for and difficult to administer.

We decided not so insure cases (speccing) as we did not want to have an ATE Insurance underwriter constantly looking over our shoulders and telling us what to do. The hassle and administration of having a policy (the application process, reporting on the file, requesting permission to issue etc) in our minds outweighed the benefits (the client was protected against legal costs). We said to ourselves, ‘if we lose a case then we will look after the client’ – and we always did.

Unfortunately, we hadn’t realised that this was actually committing an offence and breaching the solicitor’s professional rules (see Adris v Royal Bank of Scotland) although in fact this wasn’t why we changed our ways. One day we lost a big case and hence lots of money so we decided to do something about the After the Event Insurance market – and formed Box Legal Limited.

Our scheme operates on the (reasonable) assumption that the person best placed to decide on the prospects of a case is the solicitor, not an underwriter sitting in an office in Gibraltar. The ATE Insurance policies are simple to obtain (the on-line form takes 1 minute to complete) and easy to administer. There are no reporting requirements save to tell us after proceedings are issued and there is no need to ask permission to take any step or incur any disbursement. All we ask in return is that the solicitor stops speccing which, as this is an offence in any event, we think is a reasonable requirement. 

Easy peasey.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 4

Caselaw Review: Adris v Royal Bank of Scotland

Posted in Caselaw Review

The Issues: A number of Claimants brought claims against their banks for breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and had been introduced to a firm of solicitors by a Case Management Company (“CMC”).  The solicitors failed to arrange After the Event Insurance (ATE) cover and did not inform their clients about the risk of an adverse costs award and that there was no cover in place.  The Claimants case failed and costs were awarded against some of them, but when they were unable to pay the Defendant made an application for a non-party costs order (NPCO) against the solicitors and the CMC.

Held: Whether the “non-party” has effective control of the litigation and causation are important factors in determining whether a NPCO should be made.

The CMC’s literature said that ATE insurance would be purchased on their behalf should proceedings be issued, but no such cover was ever arranged.  It was accepted that this was a failure on the part of the Claimants’ solicitors.

The Claimants’ solicitors had never spoken to any of the Claimants informing them that they had no insurance nor did they explain to any of their clients the costs consequences of them having no insurance if they lost.  This failure to tell clients that they had no ATE insurance when they believed they were protected was “a gross breach of duty” by the Claimants’ solicitors and meant that they were effectively acting without instructions as their clients were prevented from giving instructions on anything like an informed view [para 27].

The Court held that had the Claimants been aware of the risk that they might become personally liable for the Defendant’s costs then they would have been likely to inform their solicitors that they did not want to continue with their claims.  Therefore had the Claimants’ solicitors acted as they should have done, these cases would not have been issued nor would the Defendant’s costs have been incurred, creating a direct causal link.  It was also held that as the Claimants’ solicitors were effectively acting without instructions, they were in a very real sense controlling the litigation. [para 43]

The NPCO applications against the CMC were dismissed, but those against the solicitors succeeded on the basis of the central failing of not arranging ATE insurance [para 46].

Comment:

  1. In this case the client was told by a work referrer that an ATE policy would be purchased so care needs to be taken especially when clients have been told by either a work referrer or the solicitor that the claim is risk free, or that cover is being arranged, that there is sufficient legal expense insurance in place. Indeed it may be reasonable to assume that most work referrers have told their clients (orally at least) that there is no costs risk to them.
  2. In addition, Rules 2.03(1)(f) and (g) of the Code of Conduct require solicitors to advise their clients of their potential liability for another party’s costs and to discuss whether their liability for adverse costs is covered by an existing insurance policy or whether specially purchased insurance should be obtained.  It therefore seems that there is a risk of a NPCO against a solicitor whenever they fail to properly advise and protect their client against the risk of adverse costs, and where they fail to do so, they may be deemed to have pursued an action without instructions.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 4

Lord Young Review: Government Getting Cold Feet

Posted in Personal Injury Claims

Reform of the perceived “Compensation Culture” has been at the heart of the government’s long promised review of the justice system. For a number of years it has promised to make sure that school outings, charity fundraising and community events can operate without the blight of unwarranted personal injury claims. It has campaigned long and hard to remove the fear of such claims so as to allow the voluntary sector to flourish and to create David Cameron’s “Big Society”.

But the indications are that the government is now getting cold feet.

Under the last government a review of the personal injury claims process was carried out by Lord Justice Jackson. It was very detailed but focused primarily on speeding up the claims process and cutting down on the cost of it. He made two main recommendations: firstly he recommended that claims companies should be banned from charging for their work – (effectively banned from operating – their advertising would obviously disappear)1. His reasoning was that claims companies charge for the work they carry out and if they could be eliminated from the process then solicitors would no longer have to buy cases from them. Solicitors would then have lower overheads and the costs they recovered from defendants could be proportionately reduced. Secondly he recommended that claimants should no longer be able to recover the cost of legal expenses insurance which most of them purchase at the beginning of a claim2. His reasoning was that although the insurance was obviously useful, the operating costs and profit of those legal expenses insurer’s could be saved if they were removed from the claims process.

It all sounded sensible until the detail was looked at. The problem was that a vital ingredient of his recommendations was that important parts of the British legal system needed to be changed – it meant abolishing the long-standing rule that if someone brings a claim and loses, then they must pay the costs of the successful defendant3. This has always seemed fair – the claimant should be penalised for claiming what he was not entitled to receive, and the defendant should be compensated for the costs he needlessly incurred. In order to achieve this cost saving however, Jackson recommended that this existing rule should be abolished – from now on claimants would not normally be required to pay costs if they bought an unsuccessful personal injury claim, and defendants could not recover the money they spent successfully defending it.

This may reduce the costs involved in personal injury claims (although even Jackson conceded that this was relatively small)4 but it appears set to promote just the sort of compensation culture which the government has promised to tackle. Introducing a rule that whatever the outcome, no costs are paid in personal injury actions appears to be a charter for promoting unmeritorious claims. Although at present it is possible to insure against paying the other side’s legal costs, those claims are carefully filtered and monitored by legal expense insurers. What is now proposed is that even claimants with hopeless cases will never have to pay costs – it is going to be a major boost to the claims industry and every potential claimant is going to realise that they have nothing to lose by “having a go”.

This will have a spiraling effect. Defendants (which normally means their insurance companies) will know that whatever is spent successfully defending a claim will be money they cannot recover. Any sensible insurer will realise that rather than spend £1-2000 successfully defending a poor claim, it will be cheaper to simply pay the claimant £500 or so “to go away”. In other words it will be cheaper to pay out on a ridiculous claim than to fight it. And once this is widely known, the floodgates will be open!5

And it gets worse. A number of reports have concluded that the problem we face as a society is not necessarily that there has been a rise in the number of personal injury claims but that potential defendants have reacted disproportionately to the fear of them6. Village fetes, school expeditions, traditional village activities on the common, and charity events have all suffered as a result. What will the proposed changes do to these activities? We already have a climate of excessive caution hampering these events. Local authorities and event organisers need to be persuaded that their fears are misconceived (in reality the level of claims is extremely low – one government report says £800 per year per local authority). Spurious personal injury claims should simply be strongly resisted and the costs recovered from those who make them. If Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations are brought into being however this will no longer be possible. Event organisers will know that they have to avoid not just legitimate personal injury claims (which they can do just by making their events reasonably safe) but that they now have to avoid even the risk of a personal injury claim, because even ridiculous claims are going to cost them money they can ill afford which they will not be able to recover. Who would think of making such a change?

Well strangely Lord Young – just the very person who has been carrying out a review of the compensation culture says that he fully supports Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations which presumably includes abolishing the costs rule which for years has enabled us to avoid the worst excesses of the American legal system.

This is all extremely worrying. Everybody believed that the government was committed to reducing the fear of compensation claims not increasing it. The government may wish to save the high legal costs being incurred in clinical negligence claims against the NHS. That may be legitimate and an area ripe for review, but its support for the relatively small savings which Jackson’s recommendations will achieve are dangerous and ill-conceived. It is amazing that David Cameron would even consider them, and if they are introduced, his hopes of a Big Society appear doomed before they have begun.

1. Review of Civil Litigation Costs – Lord Jackson. December 2009 (“Jackson Report”). Referral fees should be banned: Page xvii Para. 2.5 and Pages 203 – 206

2. Jackson Report: Page xvi Para. 2.2 and Pages 87 & 88 Paras. 4.1 – 4.6

3. Jackson Report: Page 17 Para. 2.7 and Page 89 Para. 5.8 and Page 188 Para. 4.2

4. Jackson Report: Page 86 Para. 3.16 and Page 87 Para 4.1

5. “Access to Justice – balancing the Risk” The Adam Smith Institute. Page 5 http://www.adamsmith.org/publications/justice-and-civil-liberties/access-to-justice%3A-balancing-the-risks/ 

6. Safety & Health Practitioner” http://www.shponline.co.uk/news-content/full/legal-fees-study-could-obstruct-compensation-culture-proposals “According to Lord Young, the compensation culture – whether real or perceived – has influenced individuals and organisations to act in a more risk-averse manner for fear of being sued if an injury, or death occurs that can be linked to their action, or inaction.”

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 3

Caselaw Review: Ashley Cole v News Group Newspapers

Posted in Conditional Fee Agreements

The Issues: During the course of a detailed assessment, the Defendant asked to see the Claimant’s Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA), although the Defendant had not at that stage raised any specific point regarding it – they simply wished to see it.

Held: The Court’s power to order disclosure (rule 47.14 CPR and Para 40.14 of the Costs Practice Direction) did not arise until after Detailed Assessment had commenced and the paying party had first raised a “genuine dispute” on the CFA. If a “genuine issue” is raised, the ‘Pamplin procedure’ will apply. (Pamplin -v- Express Newspapers Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 689 – since a CFA is a privileged document between solicitor and client, the Court has no power to force disclosure of it. If a Defendant raises an issue the Claimant can decide whether to disclose the CFA to prove his case. If the Claimant does not disclose the CFA the Court can take account of the fact that the Claimant may have a legitimate interest in not disclosing the CFA).

Comment: In Hollins v Russell (2003) the Court of Appeal indicated that CFAs should normally be disclosed (although the Defendant still had to raise a genuine dispute before taking matters any further). Hollins was decided however when the CFA Regulations were in force (pre November 2005). At that time there were many possible ways in which a Claimant’s solicitor might slip up and fail to enter into a valid CFA, and it appears that the Court had this in mind when deciding that CFAs should be disclosed. The Master in this case did not specifically decide on whether Hollins applied to CFAs signed after November 2005, however such CFAs need now only be in writing (Section 27 Access to Justice Act 1999), in order to be valid – the other procedural requirements were all repealed in 2005. This being so, Counsel for the Claimants certainly argued that once the Claimant confirms that the CFA is in writing, it is difficult to envisage how a genuine issue could be raised on it, and it is therefore unlikely that a CFA signed after November 2005 would ever need to be disclosed.

It is also relevant to note that CFAs signed under the regulations contained much more sensitive information than those used after November 2005 (for example they contained details of the solicitor’s interest in any ATE policy they recommended). Claimant solicitors were therefore quite rightly reluctant to disclose a document which would simply provide the Defendant with ammunition for a potential challenge. Since CFAs used after November 2005 are unlikely to contain information which Claimant solicitors would be reluctant to disclose (certainly those based on the standard Law Society model) the question of whether or not to disclose the CFA is much less sensitive.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off tags:
Nov 3

The danger of speccing

Posted in After The Event Insurance

Many solicitors don’t bother with After the Event Insurance because they believe that they can’t lose particular types of cases. Why bother insuring a claim where a passenger has been injured in a rear shunt car accident? The solicitor decides to speculate (another word for it is gamble) that they will win as they don’t want to have to fill in forms and report to an ATE insurer. Instead they tell themselves that they will look after the client if anything goes wrong – so they start speccing.

Unfortunately, things do go wrong. What about the case we came across where the solicitor hadn’t insured a rear shunt claim where the client had aparrantly suffered a neck injury. The defendants made an early low Part 36 offer which the claimant solicitor was confident they could beat. Problem was, one year later they were forced to accept the original offer as medical evidence came to light that the injury was merely an exacerbation of an underlying condition. They then had to fork out for a whole year of defendant’s costs and their own disbursements from their own pocket.

Worse still, they had committed an offence under the FSA Scope regulations as they had acted as an insurer and had breached the Professional Code of Conduct by not safeguarding their client (or indeed telling them about the need for ATE Insurance). The SRA weren’t happy.

So why hadn’t they insured the case? Well it was because they perceived ATE Insurance as being difficult to obtain, a pain to administer and expensive. They should have contacted us – requesting our Claimsafe policies takes 1 minute, there are no reporting requirements except to tell us proceedings are issued and motor premiums are a fixed £367.50. Better still, the premium isn’t payable until the solicitor receives their costs.

Don’t fall into the same trap.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 2

Clocks going back leads to more fatalities

Posted in Road Accidents

So the clocks went back and we all had an extra hour in bed (except those with young children like me!) and we now have to get used to going home in the dark for the next 6 months. But did you know that lighter evenings means fewer accidents and darker means more?

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) estimates that the change back to Greenwich Mean Time increases the number of road accident fatalities by over 80 people each year, not to mention a huge increase in injuries. Strangely, darker mornings don’t seem to have the same effect – something to do with being fresh from a night’s sleep and all that coffee I suppose.

There has been a call for the UK to stick to British Summer Time to avoid this but the Government remains unconvinced. Once again the true statistics are going to be ignored so be very careful on your way home – watch out for all those tired drivers and make sure your lights are working properly.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 2

APIL & MASS blast ABI over costs

Posted in Personal Injury Claims

The Association of Personal Injury Solicitors (APIL) and MASS have hit back at the comments made by the ABI over solicitors costs. The ABI has claimed that £40 of every motor insurance premium is paid out in legal costs and that 87p is paid out to lawyers for every £1 in compensation. APIL & MASS both point out that fixed costs for motor claims were agreed by the ABI 2 years ago and that the scheme has only been operating since May. At the time of the agreement the ABI stated they were happy with the new portal arrangement so APIL and MASS comment that this is a tired and somewhat out of date argument. They also said that, as legal costs were now lower, motor premiums should be coming down.

MASS called on the ABI to release full details of the survey that was carried out but to date they have not obliged.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off
Nov 2

What is Before the Event Insurance

Posted in Personal Injury Claims

So we have done After the Event, but what is before the event insurance? Well, it is a policy of insurance to cover legal costs which you take out each year to cover you just in case you need to make a claim or if you have a legal dispute. Policies are commonly sold alongside motor insurance whereby the additionaly cover will deal with any costs of making a claim in the event of an RTA accident. They are also often sold as part of household contents insurance but then the cover usually extends to a range of legal disputes including boundary disagreements! Be careful though – policies will have strict reporting requirements including your having to notify them of the claim you wish to make within a very short time of the event occurring.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Closed
Nov 1

Road Accidents & After the Event Insurance

Posted in After The Event Insurance

If you are unfortunate enough to be injured in a car accident – be very careful when making a claim. Quite often you will be offered a no-win, no-fee agreement but you need to check with your solicitor what happens if you lose. Although most people believe no-win, no-fee means ‘no risk if you lose’ this is not the case. If you lose, your solicitor won’t charge you his/her fees (this is the ‘no-fee’ bit) but you will still be liable for your solicitor’s own ‘disbursements’ such as the cost of a medical report AND the other side’s FULL LEGAL COSTS. This is where an After The Event Insurance policy comes in such as those available from Box Legal. The policy protects you from having to pay these charges. Be careful.

Box Legal Limited: After the Event Insurance Providers
www.boxlegal.co.uk  | daniel@boxlegal.co.uk | 0870 766 9997

comments: Comments Off