Last Wednesday I attended the Modern Claims Conference 2016 which was held at Old Trafford, Manchester. For a practising Claimant Personal Injury Solicitor the experience was an eye opener!
The Rt Honourable Jack Straw opened proceedings with a keynote speech. He left the audience in no doubt that he believed that there are too many lawyers and that, combined with the UK having “the softest necks in the world” is the reason for the so-called “compensation culture” which he says exists today. He described whiplash as “an invention of fertile legal minds”.
Mr Straw is very supportive of the Government’s proposed raising of the small claims limit, together with a ban on compensation for soft tissue injuries, and hopes the insurance industry will, should these reforms become legislation, reciprocate by reducing premiums. He favours regulation of the insurance industry if this does not occur.
The next item on the agenda was the Claimant Panel. They spoke about how the Government’s proposed ban on compensation for soft tissue injuries will cause a fundamental change to the Law of Tort. I wonder if, as part of the ongoing PR battle, we might consider explaining to a sceptical public a potted history of the development of the Law of Tort, and in doing so counter the general view that personal injury law is a relatively new concept, although, in legal terms, 1932 isn’t very long ago!
The panel were hopeful that meaningful discussion on the Government’s proposals will be possible once the much-awaited consultation begins.
When the insurance industry panel took to the stage they tried very hard to look relaxed, but their adversarial tone and, at times, blatant rudeness revealed their true attitudes. Whilst supporting the proposals of the Government, the insurers were at pains to state that they had nothing to do with the proposed legislation. This was something that the audience found hard to swallow.
Hackles were further raised when the panel claimed that motor vehicle insurers are struggling to make a profit in “the most competitive market in the world”. Perhaps “the most competitive monopoly in the world” might be more appropriate, given that motor insurance is obligatory. An example was given of Ageas Insurance, failing to meet it’s 11% profit target. It was described as an “underperforming” business. No figures were provided to say the actual amount of profit made.
Etymologists in the audience would have noted the use of the phrase “unnecessary claims” used repeatedly by members of the insurance panel. This is a clear shift in language from the now apparently defunct “fraudulent claims” allegations,mirroring the language used by Lord Faulks at the 2016 APIL conference and, perhaps, an acknowledgement that this is an argument the Claimant lobby have won by showing that research shows that 0.4% of claims are fraudulent.
Of some comfort to Claimants were the panel’s views that, should the small claims limit be raised, there would need to be significant controls to protect litigants in person from the claims management companies who everyone believes are likely to rush into the vacuum created by the proposed legislation.
There was talk of a tariff system, policed independently, to ensure insurers paid the correct level of damages to litigants in person. As a lawyer who sees the offers made to injured people by insurers without representation, I believe there will need to be a complete culture shift from the insurance industry to ensure that this happens.
After the insurers, came the media panel who gave a balanced view of the future of personal injury. They made the point, as I have in a previous blog, Justice a level playing field? that lawyers act as gatekeepers against fraud and, in their view, the proposed legislation will benefit only the claims management companies who both the Claimant and Insurer lobbies take issue with.
I came away from the conference feeling uneasy. It seems to me that, with a fresh approach, and openness between the parties, there is plenty of negotiation and agreement that can take place to make things better for all sides. After all, we all seem to want to protect injured people, prevent fraud and make a reasonable profit. My fear is that the significant mistrust that currently exists makes it difficult to see how we can collaborate meaningfully. I live in hope!
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.
0 Comments