Personal injury claims - what a scam!

dacouch

Have a read of the comment in blue at the bottom right hand corner, people will claim for anything now days...

http://www.accidentclaims.org/

BertTheRaccoon

dacouch wrote: »

Have a read of the comment in blue at the bottom right hand corner, people will claim for anything now days...

http://www.accidentclaims.org/

:rotfl: :T

pc1271

This really infuriates me. It really does.

dacouch

BertTheRaccoon wrote: »

:rotfl: :T

I think we should seek Carzy Jamie's advice on Quantam figures for that one.

Here it is before it's deleted...

"I was getting bummed in a public toilet and slipped on a wet floor and split my head open... my boyfriend had to rush me to hospital. I just received a £2k cheque for 10 stiches in my head and a burst anus... thanks! Mr C Eyley"

Thoughts please Jamie

BertTheRaccoon

Reckon the insurers argued betterment for the burst anus?

Red Socking, suits you sir

I'm sure that's not in the 10th Edition of the JSB

Crazy_Jamie

dacouch wrote: »

I think we should seek Carzy Jamie's advice on Quantam figures for that one.

Here it is before it's deleted...

"I was getting bummed in a public toilet and slipped on a wet floor and split my head open... my boyfriend had to rush me to hospital. I just received a £2k cheque for 10 stiches in my head and a burst anus... thanks! Mr C Eyley"

Thoughts please Jamie

Sounds about right. People who get whiplash may complain about trivial matters such as not being able to work or care for their children, but this poor Claimant probably wouldn't have been able to get bummed again for quite some time after the accident. That is a significant loss of amenity, and well worth his settlement figure.

Also, I must have laughed for a solid minute after reading that. Brilliant.

dacouch

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Sounds about right. People who get whiplash may complain about trivial matters such as not being able to work or care for their children, but this poor Claimant probably wouldn't have been able to get bummed again for quite some time after the accident. That is a significant loss of amenity, and well worth his settlement figure.

Also, I must have laughed for a solid minute after reading that. Brilliant.

Would accidentclaims.org have negotiated with the insurers before they reached around a settlement?

Crazy_Jamie

On a more relevant and serious note:

vet8 wrote:

That is the reason everyone's insurance premiums rise every year.

It doesn't contribute as much as you might think. Well, obviously the extensive advertising of personal injury litigation services and badgering of potential Claimants does increase the volume of claims, but notwithstanding the clearly unethical approach of some companies in encouraging false claims, the vast majority of claims are legitimate. The last official figures that I saw put confirmed cases of fraud at 2% and estimates for total fraud at 4%, though of course much of those figures are accounted for by fraud rings and such, so the number of individual people committing fraud is lower still. I saw those figures a couple of years ago and they were published by Admiral. I doubt much has changed since.

One of the biggest problems in terms of increasing costs of litigation actually comes from the approach of insurance companies in defending a lot of these claims. Many insurance companies, and solicitors firms that they subsequently instruct in litigation, have a habit of making low offers for general damages (the amount an injury is worth) and running the case all the way to trial or disposal. At that stage the costs have increased dramatically, and are then doubled due to the success fee on the Conditional Fee Agreement. As such the costs often dwarf the amount that the Claimant is awarded in damages, but that is an entirely avoidable outcome if the insurance companies just made more realistic offers.

For example, let's say a Claimant has a 'basic' whiplash injury worth about £2,000. Many insurance companies would offer about £1,500 and run the case to disposal or trial if that is not accepted. At that final hearing the Claimant is awarded £2,000, and the insurance company would then be ordered to pay the Claimant's costs. In a case of that nature you're looking at about £3,000 base costs for the solicitors and £500 for the barrister (it's actually a set fee of £485, but I'm rounding up for ease of maths). That's £3,500, doubled for the success fee, making £7,000. You then have disbursements, including instructing the medical expert and the ATE policy. Final figure probably somewhere between £8,000 and £9,000. Plus a few grand for the solicitors and barrister that the insurance company instructed. Total cost probably around £15,000.

That is a scenario that happens commonly up and down the country.

Now consider an alternative. The Claimant has a whiplash injury worth £2,000. Early on the insurance company makes an offer of £2,000, or even £2,200 to make it a good offer. Claimant accepts. Barrister is never involved, solicitor's base costs are very low, and the uplift is restricted because the case settled. Overall cost probably about £3,000, if that. Plus the insurers also avoid the cost of paying solicitors themselves to defend the case.

The latter approach would be the practical one that should prevale if common sense ruled the roost with insurance companies. But it doesn't. All too often the first scenario happens. So we can blame the increased claims on advertising and fraudulent claims, which is true to some degree. But the insurers themselves have to take a huge slice of blame as to how they conduct matters. It's by no means an absolute rule that insurers and the solicitors they instruct take that approach, but it does happen too often, and the impact it has on the costs of these claims (and in turn premiums) is significant, as the figures above will show you.

Of course, this year the Jackson reforms come into play, which will shake personal injury litigation right up. The reforms are significant and make several substantial changes to the system, which are broadly aimed at decreasing costs. So this status quo will only be around for a little while longer. As to how the industry reacts to that, I have a few theories as to how it might go, but we'll have to wait and see.

TSx

Out of interest Jamie, do you find this is across all insurers or just some particularly bad ones? I know when we negotiate, the first offer we now make is at the 'higher figure' from the calculated range for that injury and then negotiate upwards if neccesary.

We're constantly being told to avoid litigation and costs to prevent exactly the scenario you describe above.

Finefoot

Crazy Jamie,
Please can you expand on the Jackson ruling? I know someone who has been going the motions for 6 years now, for their PI claim.