Posts Tagged ‘personal injury

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.

01
Jun
11

Referral fees – cash in while you can

Like any risk taking market, there are a lot of things which get up the insurance industry’s nose; young irresponsible drivers, everyone paving over their front drives, burglars tripping over a fold in the carpet at the end of a heist and suing the homeowner – you name it, there’s been a campaign to fight every scurge.

But few have been faught with the collective vehemence of the battle against the payment of referral fees by personal injury lawyers in exchange for a case. Since their introduction in 2004, the claimant legal sector has built up a thriving industry on payment of these charges to accident management companies, insurance brokers and insurers. On the basis that when an individual is innocently injured by a negligent third party (rear-end shunt, slip, trip fall etc) they are entitled to compensation from the latter, this has burnt a halo onto the heads of innocents everywhere in the now familiar; “oh you’ve been injured, we can help you” sent by text or advertised on TV.

Because costs are recoverable from the third party at the point of settlement, it’s been worth pursuing claims in the knowledge that liability is rarely questioned. Secondly, with solicitors willing to pay between £600-£1000 per case, the justification for ‘farming’ these injuries and selling them on has been fairly obvious for some time.

However, in recent months and despite its complicity in this marketplace almost all insurance industry trade groups have called for a ban; The Association of British Insurers, British Insurance Brokers Association, the Lloyd’s Market Association; all have said this cannot continue. For example in April, Nick Starling, ABI director of general insurance and health, told Post Magazine: “Enough is enough. Putting the brake on ambulance-chasing lawyers and claims management firms cannot come a moment too soon. Motorists have rightly had enough of paying for excessive legal costs, which add an extra 10% to the cost of motor insurance.

“It cannot be right that for every £1 motor insurers pay out in compensation; an extra 87p is paid out in legal costs.”

However, the legal sector remains steadfastly of the view that access to justice is at stake and these payments are not detrimental to clients. On May 27th, the Legal Services Board dropped plans to force its membership to publish their payment of the fees through their own web sites, whilst promising to ‘shine the light of transparency’ on them to ‘manage their impact’.

Understandably the insurance industry reacted negatively to the news, but in the end cold, hard cash did the talking some days later. on 31st May, stock market analyst Collins Stewart was bullish about the prospects of FTSE 100 darling Admiral Insurance precisely because of the LSB’s protectionist stance. Referral fees are to continue and Admiral will carry on earning a tidy sum from them; a fact that won’t have gone unnoticed by the many pension funds with holdings in the motor insurer.

The insurance industry has secured a number of significant victories in recent months, not least the likelihood that the loser pays business model will be removed in favour of a contingent fees structure for most types of civil litigation. It has also rightly complained that inflation was rising much too quickly within the area of personal injury, which was backed up by the industry’s most recent Bodily Injury Awards Study published in 2007.

Insurers can also take comfort in the fact that claims inflation is expected to rise further but the level of increase may be about to plateau with datamonitor revising its prediction of 2010-14 growth in claims costs down from 5.45 to 3.7% – a more comfortable figure given current levels of inflation around the general economy.

Once all’s been said and done, personal injury claims will remain big business. Those earning money from their persuit will alter business models based on a low cost up front model that promises to generate compensation cheaply and simply. Insurers will just keep having to work hard to pay the genuine claims and bat away the chancers.

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

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.

17
Dec
10

Insurance and legal trade press roundup

Insurance Times

Personal lines market returns to growth

Hooray, Datamonitor says the insurance sector’s rate rises will push through growth in the industry over the next four years, bringing in combined GWP of £29.2bn by 2014.

The said it expects to see the strongest growth in 2011 and 2012, with growth continuing, though at a decreased rate, in 2013 and 2014. Datamonitor financial services analyst Stephen Ko said: “Private motor is seeing double-digit rate increases every quarter: 11%, 12% and 13%.”

Post Magazine

Helpline claims to be hoax victim over texts

I’ve heard a lot of insurance company claims directors quoted in the media that they’ve received unsolicited texts from claims farmers telling them they’ve got a £5k whiplash action in the bag if they want it.

Interestingly, National Accident Helpline has now claimed to be a victim of such calls, with staff receiving texts. The problem was, the calls purported to be from NAH itself.

As it turns out NAH was caught up in a Claims Standards Council investigation of unsolicited text messages.

According to the CSC, replies to the messages were picked up by the National Accident Helpline and then forwarded to one of its panel solicitors. The findings of the investigation were forwarded to the Ministry of Justice this week.

However, Beth Powell, consumer director of National Accident Helpline, told Post: “In the past month we have reported three text messaging companies for their unregulated activity and one online company to the Ministry of Justice for passing off their businesses under our name. One of the text messaging companies had targeted four of our own senior staff, claiming to offer £3750 in compensation.”

Motor Claims soar in wintry weather –

Not being a Doctor I couldn’t tell you whether this means more or less whiplash claims, but perhaps motor insurers will get their first frostbite legal action?

AA Insurance has reported a 23% jump in motor insurance claims in the first week of December, following a spate of icy weather conditions across the UK.

During the period, the broker received 609 claims, including 210 traffic collisions, 104 incidents with parked cars, 34 cars hitting walls, two collisions with cyclists and one collision with a wild boar.

News in brief from the legal press…

Law Soc Gazette

As is his wont, FOIL president Tim Oliver who runs a law firm that specialises in high volume, fixed cost work and 3rd party capture, says the fixed cost RTA regime needs extending and that third party capture should be encouraged.

It seems the government wants to avoid the embarrassment caused by Geoff Hoon and all those cash for lobbying stings when he asked for £5000 a day and is establishing a register of lobbyists with a new bill next year and a green paper in February. The Law Society has jumped at the opportunity, although it’s unclear how private companies will be able to circumvent conflict of interest issues… 

Local Government Lawyer

The government has published another list, this time of courtroom closures. There’s not been a huge amount in the insurance press about how this will affect case management, but it’s a good bet there will be some raised eyebrows when a claim in Northwich gets referred to Birmingham or somewhere miles away…

07
Dec
10

Something for personal injury lobbyists in 2011?

So, the government has effectively rubber stamped the Jackson proposals and most of Lord Young’s recommendations will maintain their hearty Whitehall endorsements, despite the former Business Secretary’s indiscretion in November. However buried beneath this story in the papers is a topic which might get tongues wagging in personal injury circles from here on in.

It took the insurance trade media a couple of weeks to notice that the Discount Rate was officially under review but this certainly got the defendant lobby talking amongst themselves with the actuaries pulling out their calculators first off. Laura McMaster an insurance partner at the actuarial firm LCP, said: “To illustrate, a typical lump sum settlement of £6m agreed on a 2.5% discount rate could increase to around £7.2m on a 1% discount rate and to around £9.0m on a -0.5% discount rate.”

Insurance Times rounded on the topic on 2nd December in a subscriber only article and pointed to a potentially dark future for insurers. It suggested that a combination of the increase in numbers of Periodical Payment Orders being made by judges; their calculation now being linked to a faster inflating index ever since the Thompstone v Tameside judgement in 2008; and the potential of a reduced discount rate might mean premium inflation is essential to help them top up liability reserves. It appears the actuarial profession is warning the insurance industry to consider this seriously.

The review itself has been on the cards for some time. In another subscriber-only piece this time in Post Magazine from early 2009, Barlow Lyde and Gilbert partner James Dadge said: “General economics are clearly leading the claimant lobby to make its case to have the rate reduced.”

Dadge also produced a handy illustration of what a change in the discount rate would mean for damages awards:

That about wraps it up for the discount rate coverage (ok it is a bit dry, I admit) so back to the juicy stuff and at what had effectively become rolling Jackson reform newsdesks, the Lawyer’s Katie Dowell reported how it happened by giving the drama from a journalist’s perspective, including an exciting Whitehall press conference called at a moment’s notice.

Interestingly, Guardian columnist Neil Rose suggested that a better venue for the announcement might have been Tory Central Office.

As the dust began to settle, Linda Lee’s impassioned plea to the profession in last week’s Law Society Gazette certainly added some perspective and it’s clear that 2011 will be something of a red letter year for legal services.

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.

31
Aug
10

Good cop bad cop with Admiral after H1 results

There’s an interesting dichotomy to the coverage regarding insurance company Admiral’s first half results. The national media focuses in on the company’s share price alone, while the trade media puts the spotlight onto its declaration that it isn’t like other motor insurers and has no problem with bodily injury claims inflation.

The Guardian’s Market Forces Blog points the story out with a cheerful headline that Admiral’s staff are likely to cash in after a profit boost; Admiral staff cash in after profit boost, as FTSE edges higher | Business | guardian.co.uk.

However, it reports that analyst recommendations placed Admiral’s stock on the sell list straight away. Two analysts, Charles Coyne and Eamonn Flanaghan attached for sale signs to this particular share which they say is ‘materially overvalued’. It’s hard to disagree when the price is so very much in excess of the company’s net asset value.

The trade media however focuses in on the reason perhaps that Admiral is able to command such loyalty from its shareholders and a factor that may well inform that sky-high equity.

Amidst spiraling claims, most of the UK motor insurance sector can’t bring in money any quicker than it goes out of the back door, so to hear a company confidently reporting that it has seen no ‘unusual trends in bodily injury or damage claims’ is rather refreshing.   

Could it be down to good underwriting in the first instance? Well, Admiral’s quota share arrangement means it carries less liabilities on its own balance sheet than many rivals in favour of having the risk spread amongst a group of reinsurers – see one example here – and that means the consequent claims exposure is also shared. However, such arrangements exist to secure a profit on underwriting and as such there is no more or less demand upon Admiral’s underwriters than there would be for those at Royal Bank of Scotland Insurance, Aviva or RSA.

Admiral has enjoyed a purple patch for some time now and if the analysts’ story is to be believed, that could be about to end. Some credit should be extended to an insurance company that manages its portfolio well though. Motor insurance is a great leveller in financial services and those who make a margin in it should get a pat on the back from their investors.




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