Personal injury claims now being the norm

Queries

The Insurance providers dug our graves - cost wise (they had no intention of making a trading loss except via the people who insured with them and trusted them). From day one they paid out on fraudulent claims (and still do) because they could not be bothered to investigate a so-called whiplash or a so-called sprained ankle. Now if they had, it would have been nipped in the bud and stopped very early on. But, why should they care? We pay for it not them. When the banking system was overhauled so should have the insurance system. I was told by my insurance broker regarding a fraudulent claim (ongoing) that I had to prove myself innocent. Which means that they, too, have bent the true meaning of British Justice - innocent until proven guilty!

raskazz

Queries wrote: »

I was told by my insurance broker regarding a fraudulent claim (ongoing) that I had to prove myself innocent. Which means that they, too, have bent the true meaning of British Justice - innocent until proven guilty!

Your case would be a civil matter between yourself and the third party. Thus, the criminal law adage of "innocent until proven guilty" is meaningless and irrelevant. Civil law is determined on the balance of probabilities.

dacouch

It was actually the Government who caused the problems, they reduced spending on Legal Aid and cut the types of claims that could be made as a trade off they allowed the use of Contingent Fee Agreements (No Win No Fee) for solicitors much the same as in America. The result being the situation we are now in

dacouch

http://www.no-win-no-fee.com/blog/when-did-the-law-change-to-allow-personal-injury-solicitors-to-pay-for-claims/

Quentin

Queries wrote: »

if I had re-insured on the day my insurance was due, then I would not have had to pay this additional amount as I did not know there was a claim pending. ( So, I suggest anybody looking for a renewal, renews the day before).

Not a very clever suggestion, and not recommended for anyone to take up!

If you had renewed your policy without declaring this claim, (then kept the claim secret) then your new insurer would still have come after you when they became aware of the situation. (Which they would have done via CUE).

This might have been after you had needed to make a claim, and could have resulted in them being able to refuse your claim on the grounds of your non declaration.

Crazy_Jamie

Queries wrote:

From day one they paid out on fraudulent claims (and still do) because they could not be bothered to investigate a so-called whiplash or a so-called sprained ankle.

You would actually be surprised at how often insurance companies instruct their solicitors to allege fraud (or take equivalent stances, such as LVI) with insufficient evidence. I appreciate that your individual experience can skew your view somewhat, but the wider picture tells a different story. Insurers are often actually remarkably inefficient in economic terms when it comes to dealing with personal injury claims.