Posts Tagged ‘Jackson review

15
Feb
12

Insurer lobbying power should force Law Society rethink

If the six-point plan designed to to tackle rising motor insurance premiums outlined by Prime Minister David Cameron yesterday proves anything, it’s that lobbying this coalition just got tougher.

Before the meeting Downing Street had already made its intentions abundantly clear, by cold shouldering any representatives of the claimant personal injury market and briefing the national, trade and broadcast media that it would be the insurance industry itself who would be trusted to decide what changes are necessary in order to pass on savings to consumers. Continue reading ‘Insurer lobbying power should force Law Society rethink’

04
Jan
12

My top five headaches for the UK insurance industry

For those running brokers and insurance companies in the UK non-life market, 2012 promises to be a challenging year with reputation topping my list of worries for the industry.

Issues ranging from closure of a £500m tax loophole to  how major property exposures can be managed once a decades-old pact to insure buildings at risk of flooding comes to an end; these and more will all vie for directors’ attention alongside the day to day running of businesses typically located at the grudge purchase end of the high street.

With concerns both legislative and market-driven requiring considerable thought, here’s my top five insurance industry headscratchers.

Continue reading ‘My top five headaches for the UK insurance industry’

02
Dec
11

Anti #LASPO lobbying a mixed success

Around 2.30pm yesterday, my Legal Tweets twitter list gurgled into life with claims that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, had  been delayed.

I also had a stream following the #LASPO hashtag and it quickly emerged with the news that a six month delay was indeed likely and that areas around how lawyers are contracted to do legal aid work were at the core of the bottleneck.

This followed a written ministerial statement from Justice Minister Ken Clarke, explaining that implementation of ‘all’ the highly controversial legal aid reforms currently going through parliament will be pushed back six months, from October 2012 to April 2013.

Having followed this story closely, I cannot help but think that in addition to the House of Lords debate of 21st November, that the sheer volume of lobbying from a committed and articulate opposition has had an effect. If only to maintain the status quo and keep legal aid on the relatively low budget upon which it currently operates for a further six months; the parties who involved themselves in the campaign against cuts have scored a small victory.

Some of the writing on the subject has been eloquent. This blog post from Simpson Millar managing partner Peter Watson illustrates a number of the least fair aspects of the LASPO bill as it stands. However, he was disappointed, saying as much on twitter this morning, to find out that Lord Justice Jackson’s proposed reforms of civil costs will probably march on unhindered. To their critics, LJ Jackson’s reforms will lead to a significant reduction in the accessibility of conditional fee agreements for claimants and as some believe it, a significant squeeze on access to justice.

Opponents may be just about out of time to push back against that particular juggernaut.

14
Feb
11

Trade press review: Fire lit under Jackson; would a Quora law firm be better than a twitter one?

It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell if media coverage of the debate between claimant and defendant sides in personal injury is having any influence on government policy. However in January, it appeared that good old fashioned case law may have trumped Whitehall’s timetable for civil justice reform anyway.

Despite the myriad consultations and decrees from the Ministry of Justice, one case may have had the power to accelerate Lord Justice Jackson’s civil justice reforms quicker than anyone could have imagined.

January was awash with comment and debate on the implications of the judgement in MGN v United Kingdom (Case No. 39401/04). Legal Week produced an excellent roundup of the media coverage on the issue, which has certainly got tongues wagging over the future of success fees and CFAs.

The matter of access to justice is rarely away from the headlines these days and the issue does find itself the subject of news copy in some odd places. For example, the Mirror seems to be posing its journalists as Raymond Chandler-esque private detectives; it appears they’re keen to lay it on thick with whatever material they can.

January’s news was also replete with discussion about how motor insurers can justify rising premiums amidst a climate in which every other cost for motorists is heading north too. It’s not difficult to understand the reason this was such a hot topic; Parliament’s Transport Select Committee has been hearing presentations from interested parties on the issue so it’s been straight-talking time.

To offer a little context, rates across personal and commercial motor have generally been on the rise for more than a year and understandably many insurers are keen to present ways in which they might conceivably keep premiums down. For example, insurer Swiftcover added its name to proposals by the Association of British Insurers for broader access to the DVLA database, regarded as one of the most effective means of cutting out fraud at point of sale. Another company, Esure, pointed out some salient concerns it has about rather worrying claims inflation statistics that are specific to one postcode synonymous with the motoring world
And finally, returning to the world of social networking, some smart people at personal injury referral network Loyalty Law have launched what on the surface appears to be the country’s first ever Twitter law firm. Obviously there’s a little more behind it but in essence, users can ask simple ‘what if?’ questions which are answered by a panel of law firms.
It would be my hunch that Quora would be a better network for this type of approach, but we’ll have to wait and see if it gains enough traction with everyday users first.

This article was written by freelance business journalist and PR consultant Ralph Savage.

16
Nov
10

Media roundup – legal aid cuts and Jackson round 2

Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke went straight to the top of the news bulletins yesterday afternoon, as the government unveiled proposals to cut £350m from legal aid budgets and a second consultation into the Jackson report.  

It seems the Legal Action Group’s survey late last week fell on deaf ears and free legal advice is living on borrowed time. Kenneth Clarke delivered his address to the commons yesterday and the BBC has produced a useful overview of the announcement, although the mainstream media’s focus is primarily on the legal aid portion of the MOJ’s plan. Perhaps the most interesting angle comes from the Telegraph, which given its propensity to tackle MPs’ expenses claims, points out that they’ll no longer be able to get help defending themselves.

Radio 4 spent the vast majority of its air time re-quoting Law Society CEO Des Hudson’s question to Mr Clarke, “what if you are not rich or mighty? How will you get access to justice?” he said.

The Minister’s response was to point out what seems like an opportunity for the private sector and presumably legal expenses insurers. Mr Clarke answered that no-win-no-fee will apply in certain circumstances to those areas abandoned by civil legal aid under the proposals, namely divorce; clinical negligence and certain types of employment claims.

On the second issue of costs in civil litigation, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers was quick to get its point of view across. The lion’s share of coverage from the insurance trade press revolves around Clarke’s fellow justice minister Jonathan Djanogly and his statement on costs recoverability. Insurance Times explains the key proposal to abolish recoverability on CFAs with interested parties invited to get their ten cents worth to the MOJ no later than Valentine’s Day 2011.

05
Nov
10

October 2010 – personal injury’s biggest month ever

Web traffic and media coverage concerning personal injury have hit almost unprecedented levels as Lord Young’s government commissioned report into Health & Safety keeps the circus going.

But this wasn’t the only story of substance affecting solicitors during October.

The month opened with a bang as the Legal Services Board published proposals for improving the regulation of referral fees; Meanwhile, the Financial Times saw fit to include the crackdown on them as part of its speculative coverage of the government spending review.

Of course, the LSB’s announcement of a 12 week consultation was in direct opposition to Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations and those which were shortly to be outlined at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham.

Encouraged by the debate, solicitors groups joined the protests against Whitehall’s stance which was becoming the worst kept secret in modern business history.

So finally, on 15 October Lord Young’s report ‘Common Sense, Common Safety’ was published, to the general approval of the civil defendant community and Justice Minister Ken Clarke gave a ringing endorsement of contingent fee proposals in a BBC interview on October 26.

The sheer weight of opinion generated on the personal injury claims issue is impressive and it’s obvious there’s going to be more to come. However, no news roundup would be complete without some like this from our dear old Daily Mail, as ever telling it like it is.

Now I said that this wasn’t the only tale of note during October and this wasn’t a lie. Legal professionals of all shapes and sizes now have their own Ombudsman to fear/loathe/apply for work at (delete as appropriate) with the body’s new chief executive Adam Sampson anticipating around 20 000 actionable complaints every year. I wish him all the best in amalgamating the complaints procedures of eight professional bodies into one.

27
Jan
10

Readallaboutit – Insurance Times news roundup

Gallagher gets hand on £18m jewellers’ block account

After Marsh bought HSBC Brokers, some key accounts have inevitably begun to leak out what with the staff moving on. This one sees two guys taking their $12m of premium for a book of jewellery and pawnshop business over to AJ Gallagher, so that broker now controls the whole kit and kaboodle.

After last week’s sterling effort to spice up the Jackson review with a Wild West theme, I’m rather disappointed that this scoop failed to include some kind of reference to a ‘heist’.

Nevertheless, it’s a good story and the type that will be embarrassing to the losers while the winners relax and sit back on a nice pot of money. It’s not about ‘strategy’, ‘goals’, ‘aims’ or ‘plans’, which are so often the bread and butter of the business media and it’s a shame there’s not more like this to go around.

ABI to review Jackson in February

The ABI’s high level group on personal injury will discuss the Jackson review at its next meeting, according to Insurance Times, presumably for a spot of backslapping.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice admitted there was no timetable for a detailed government response to the numerous recommendations.

New estimates say asbestosis claims will reach £11bn by 2050

The statistic which struck me most is buried at the bottom of this article. In 2004, one third of mesothelioma sufferers made a claim. In 2009, this proportion had doubled.

The Actuarial Profession’s UK Working party has gone against received wisdom that there would be a peak in or around 2015. The working party’s chairman, Brian Gravelsons, said: “Insurers will of course have already noticed the increased number of claims from mesothelioma sufferers.

“There is still considerable uncertainty surrounding the future cost of asbestos claims, as the number of people who will be diagnosed with mesothelioma many years into the future cannot be accurately predicted.”

Conservatives’ Hoban tells Lloyd’s: ‘We will shut the FSA’

The Tories will dismantle the FSA if elected, giving the Bank of England the rule over prudential and solvency risk, with the Consumer Protection Agency regulating brokers, IFAs and businesses with a lower balance sheet risk.

This announcement was made at Lloyd’s of London by Mark Hoban MP. Without sticking my own flag too deep in the ground, this made me chuckle a bit as there’s no better place than Lloyd’s for a spot of barrel-chested Tory rabble rousing.

14
Jan
10

Jackson review-athon; what people are saying about it…

Today, the Jackson review recommendations were published and I’d be a rich man if I had a penny for every ten cents put in on this subject. That’s a trans-atlantic metaphor, if ever there was one…

Forum of Insurance Lawyers:  ”If all of the proposals come into effect it will usher in a new era for civil litigation. The proposals to give claimants an economic interest in the bringing of claims is very welcome”

Association of Personal Injury Lawyers:  “Under Sir Rupert’s proposals for one-way costs shifting, the claimant will either pay for an insurance premium out of his damages, or risk paying for expenses such as medical reports and court fees if he loses the claim. None of this is the case under the current system which works on the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

Nichola Evans, Browne Jacobson: “Lord Justice Jackson has recognised in recent years that in personal injury litigation claimants effectively litigate risk free with there being no costs consequences to them…”

The Lord Chief Justice: “The judiciary has been concerned for some time that the costs of civil litigation are disproportionate and excessive. Lord Justice Jackson’s fundamental review addresses these questions head on. I am extremely grateful to him for the enormous work and effort that he has brought to bear on this important, complex issue and for proposals which for the first time address the issue of costs as a comprehensive coherent whole.”

Alexandra Anderson, RPC “Whilst, under the proposals, insurers will no longer foot the bill for a successful claimant’s inflated costs, defendants (and their insurers) may be forced to settle unmeritorious claims, because they may not be able to recover costs from a claimant who brings an action that fails.”

Philippa Hayes, Halliwells: “General damages will rise slightly, but that increase will in no way match the cost of the success fee and ATE premium, to be taken out of the equation. Claimant solicitors would no longer be able to argue that their hourly rates are higher than those of the defendant insurers’ due to the necessary payment of referral fees.”




BMR Editors - click for latest posts

Choose Industry Sector

Blog Stats

  • 9,859 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 622 other followers

Twitter – @ralphsavage


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 622 other followers