Warning: Solicitors' Indemnity Insurance

Equaliser123

Crabman wrote: »

Feel free to email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL] to complain.

In the case which I refer to, the defendants point blank refused to release details of the insurer and claimed it was confidential. Are you/Bulbeckblue saying this was wrong of them? If a matter of conduct is this potentially something the Claimant needs to report to the LCS?

I don't know whether or not you are a solicitor but I was surprised that despite your experience in this area, you thought a court would ask for evidence from an 'expert solicitor'.

Insurance companies will do everything possible to mitigate a claim (look at MSE's Insurance Board for evidence of this). It isn't a case of insurers happily wishing to pay up at the first available opportunity and encouraging solicitors to notify clients of a claim. They will try to avoid paying out and when they have to settle, they will do all they can to make that as little as possible.

There are law firms out there making big bucks from defending PI claims (in contrast to falling corporate business revenue) and it is clearly in their interest to drag matters on.

Regarding point 6 - I really, really do wish that this had happened in the case I refer to, because it would have been so much easier for everyone. Yet this isn't what happened, the fault of the solicitors was covered-up. Documents went missing (luckily the Claimant had copies which made for interesting discussion during a case management hearing) and frankly every attempt was made to get rid of the Claimant just because they didn't have a solicitor.

Equaliser123 - you said, "you would be an absolute idiot to represent yourself in a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors."

I appreciate that in your position you may be dealing with respected and honourable professionals, but it is entirely possible to represent yourself in a claim against a firm provided you have the truth on your side and strong case merits. I think the experience I have set out proves that it is in fact possible. There was a lot of co-operation from the Courts towards the Claimant which definitely made things easier and the court staff were angels.

It's interesting too that CHR1S' experience (strikingly similar to the experience I refer to) is seemingly not accepted as further anecdotal evidence of what happens when things don't work out between a client and solicitor. Is CHR1S' experience just a one-off? Is the case I refer to a one-off too?

What about absfabs post (thanks for posting absfabs!)? I suppose that too is a one-off and is not representative of what really happens? Wake up and smell the coffee, the solicitor profession is not as honest as you are trying to make out.

A couple of points:

1. I have no wish to tell tales about you. I do, however, think it inappropriate and a little rude for a response to a well-informed (and polite) post to be met by someone being off the planet, etc. You do no credit to your argument in my opinion.

2. Insurers are not primarily liable - their insured is. Therefore, there is no need (and indeed it is quite common practice) to not identify the insurers.

3. I am, indeed, a solicitor. I haven't done professional negligence work (claimant) since the 1990's. I don't know what the current position is in respect of expert evidence but the basis of assessment is whether the defendant did or did not do something which a reasonable competent solicitor would have. That is the test which is required to be proven.

4. Of course insurers will try and reduce their exposure. They are a business after all. Just like all businesses try and sell their products for the highest price possible.

5. Sadly, there are law firms which make money from PI claims. It has, in my view, gone totally over the top. However, what is worse is the claims management companies - the ones you see advertised on TV, etc.

6. Of course there are bad eggs in the legal profession - just like any other. However, there are over 65,000 solicitors in the UK.

7. To my mind, it is most unwise to represent yourself in a claim. As Lord Denning once said: "A lawyer in his own cause has a fool for a client".

8. Not sure what your point is about absfabs post - he was able to instruct another solicitor to rectify the situation...?

Bulbeckblue

Adopting the same numbers:-


.

2. Insurers are not primarily liable - their insured is. Therefore, there is no need (and indeed it is quite common practice) to not identify the insurers.

I've never known a solicitor to decline to identify their insurers. I have a feeling there is a case which says they should do so- but have never had cause to look it up for this very reason...

3. I am, indeed, a solicitor. I haven't done professional negligence work (claimant) since the 1990's. I don't know what the current position is in respect of expert evidence but the basis of assessment is whether the defendant did or did not do something which a reasonable competent solicitor would have. That is the test which is required to be proven.

Quite- but there was a change in the mid to late 90s away from solicitor experts. We dont have them anymore.

4. Of course insurers will try and reduce their exposure. They are a business after all. Just like all businesses try and sell their products for the highest price possible.

Quite- the idea though that they do so by dragging things out is simply wrong. Insurance companies set reserves- and have to hold reserves against active claims. That all looks bad on their books and they generally prefer to get rid of a claim commercially than to have it last for years. Leaving a claim to drag usually just costs more in the long run- even if only in lawyers fees. Delay in dealing with cases is one of the most common reasons for solicitors to get kicked from insurers' panels.

5. Sadly, there are law firms which make money from PI claims. It has, in my view, gone totally over the top. However, what is worse is the claims management companies - the ones you see advertised on TV, etc.

The rates receovered by solicitors on defending PI claims are very modest. Firms pursuing them- is another matter.



As for acting for yourself- I have dealt with many litigants in person. Most of them have resulted in considerable unecessary expense being suffered by insurers. The vast majority had bad cases, or cases worth a fraction of what they insisted on getting. Most of those I have dealt with have eitehr been swiftly struck out, or have been offered a sum well in excess of the realistic value of their claim, simply on commercial grounds.

Of course its doable- but its generally not very advisable.

Equaliser123

Bulbeckblue wrote: »

.



I've never known a solicitor to decline to identify their insurers. I have a feeling there is a case which says they should do so- but have never had cause to look it up for this very reason...

.

I believe the case relates to a RICS and held that there was no obligation to identify.

Crabman

Bulbeckblue wrote: »

2. Insurers are not primarily liable - their insured is. Therefore, there is no need (and indeed it is quite common practice) to not identify the insurers.

I've never known a solicitor to decline to identify their insurers. I have a feeling there is a case which says they should do so- but have never had cause to look it up for this very reason...

Harcourt v FEF Griffin?

Claim value of around £10 million and the reasoning behind the order was that there was genuine concern on the part of the Claimant that the insurance liability wouldn't cover such a high figure and that they needed to know that it would be worth expending further costs on contesting quantum. Another reason had something to do with knowing the extent of the insurance so the court could decide whether to award periodic or a lump sum awards.

I believe the Judge commented that such applications for insurance disclosure orders should not be commonplace and caution should be exercised in granting such orders. What I interpret from that is that it's not common for insurance details to be released (otherwise why would an application to court be required?), what's your take?

As for alleged delays by PI defence firms - out of interest, would you say that £50,000 costs for defending a £200,000 negligence claim over a period of about 15 months prior to successful settlement is typical/good value?

Tozer

Crabman wrote: »

As for the delay by PI defence firms - out of interest, would you say that £50,000 costs for defending a £200,000 negligence claim over a period of about 15 months prior to successful settlement is typical/good value?

You cannot possibly say whether a fee compared to value is good or bad value without knowing the full facts.

I've known cases of less than £50k where legal fees have topped £100k but there had been a principle at stake or there was some highly complex technical point.

It is totally correct though to say that Defendant PI firms have VERY low charge out rates.

r0b1

Arguably the best way to settle smaller issues is by naming and shaming. This avoids the stresses of being ignored by the SRA or Legal Ombudsman and receiving abuse and intimidation from the solicitors. The easiest way to do this is probably the following website:

solicitorsfromhell.co.uk