Pre-medical offer letter to client
One of our clients was recently injured in a high velocity road traffic accident.
It was a typical situation: a busy dual carriageway at rush hour with traffic slowing to a standstill. My client slowed his vehicle and came to a standstill. The Defendant was not paying attention and slammed his vehicle into the back of my client’s car at 30 mph. The Defendant behaved with decency. He immediately went to check if everyone in my client’s vehicle needed medical attention, before admitting liability for the accident.
My client suffered a painful whiplash injury to his neck and back. His family holiday was affected as he was in a lot of pain and also had to spend the first morning of the holiday at the Minor injuries unit. He was unable to work for 3 weeks. As a self-employed builder, if he does not work, then he is not paid.
The Defendant’s insurer made a pre-medical offer. This is not unusual behaviour but, in my view, is a shoddy practice. Without medical evidence, it is impossible for an insurer to know whether a person’s injuries are genuine. Medical experts are at the front line of spotting potential fraud or exaggeration. If a pre-medical offer is made, and accepted, it is hard to see how a Claimant’s injuries can be subjected to proper scrutiny. The insurers are effectively offering fraudulent Claimants an opportunity to accept an offer without having to undergo a medical examination.
The Claimant side of the personal injury industry has been pushing for a ban on pre-medical offers for a number of years. This is something that has been resisted by the Government.
In November 2015, the Chancellor announced in his Autumn Statement the Government’s intention to remove the right to general damages for minor soft tissue claims, and to transfer personal injury claims with a value of up to £5,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (“general damages”) to the small claims court.
The Government’s reasons are, apparently, to crack down on fraud and reduce motor insurance premiums. I find it hard to reconcile this stance with a failure to ban pre-medical offers.
What the insurer in this case has, apparently, failed to understand is that when a person has instructed a Solicitor, the insurer should deal only with that Solicitor and not write directly to an injured person at all. The link above is a redacted letter which was sent to my client by a Defendant insurance company. The content of their letter suggests that they appear to have understood that they must not contact a represented person directly, but have done it anyway.
With relations between claimant Solicitors and insurers at an all time low, this kind of behaviour does little to improve trust.
We are proud to support the Access to Justice Campaign which is fighting against the proposed PI reforms. To find out more about this, visit: www.accesstojusticeactiongroup.co.uk.
If you have suffered a road traffic accident and want to discuss your claim email John Green on john.green@tayloremmet.co.uk or call 0114 218 4000.
0 Comments