An apology to Loon
Discussion
I've spent the past week in chambers with a civil set, mostly dealing with PI and clinical negligence.
One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
tenpenceshort said:
I've spent the past week in chambers with a civil set, mostly dealing with PI and clinical negligence.
One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
You going down the BVC route?One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
johnfm said:
tenpenceshort said:
I've spent the past week in chambers with a civil set, mostly dealing with PI and clinical negligence.
One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
You going down the BVC route?One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
I know I'm still a ****, it's taken me years to perfect it! but I reckon I'm more or less there now.
I'd love to claim credit for this, but as I've no idea which insurer or panel firm is dealing with this claim, I think it'd be a bit rich of me to do it. I also think there'll be a lot more than just a customer statement around the other driver braking hard. We have some damn good technology building clear fraudulent networks up and this tends to be the prompt to deny the claim. However, I'm intrigued how the insurer is litigating? We aren't claimant, we're defendant, so we just sit back and do nothing and see if they want to litigate.
What tends to happen is the claim goes away. We don't get to prosecute.
I'd love to claim credit for this, but as I've no idea which insurer or panel firm is dealing with this claim, I think it'd be a bit rich of me to do it. I also think there'll be a lot more than just a customer statement around the other driver braking hard. We have some damn good technology building clear fraudulent networks up and this tends to be the prompt to deny the claim. However, I'm intrigued how the insurer is litigating? We aren't claimant, we're defendant, so we just sit back and do nothing and see if they want to litigate.
What tends to happen is the claim goes away. We don't get to prosecute.
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 5th September 19:33
LoonR1 said:
However, I'm intrigued how the insurer is litigating? We aren't claimant, were defendant, so we juan sit back and do. toning and see if they want to litigate.
What tends to happen is the claim goes away. We don't get to prosecute.
Bing! And that's the wrong(ish) answer...What tends to happen is the claim goes away. We don't get to prosecute.
You're half correct, in that it was a PI claim from a passenger in the lead car that began proceedings, however the driver has been brought in as Part 20 defendant on the instruction of the defending insurer (household name, sounds a bit like a 70s Vauxhall). There are ongoing investigations as to claim history of driver and passenger, although it is known there have been multiple claims in recent years.
And before the PH racists jump in, the lead car was not being driven by people of Asian or East European descent.
The only option for the claimant is to now bring in the driver as a co-defendant to mitigate the risk of losing against the first defendant, which makes me suspect the claim will go away, as you say.
Soov535 said:
10p if you're going to do the BVC then let me know please.
Very early days yet, Soove- looking at next year to begin degree at the earliest. Managed to persuade a local set to let me do a mini-pupillage this past week as I have some spare time at the moment.If you have any advice I can be emailed through my PH profile and it would be gratefully received.
Erm, sir.
As I thought a bit more info than just a policyholders opinion, such as the claimants prior claim history. Still a risk, as courts do favour the claimant, especially the little person vs corporate entity.
They may be stupid enough to proceed, but as I say I claims go away rather than reach a stage that the PH Massive would see as justice.
That justice stage obviously being the carpet bombing of the Sub Continent and Ebola being released on any country to the east of Germany.
They may be stupid enough to proceed, but as I say I claims go away rather than reach a stage that the PH Massive would see as justice.
That justice stage obviously being the carpet bombing of the Sub Continent and Ebola being released on any country to the east of Germany.
SV8Predator said:
tenpenceshort said:
I've spent the past week in chambers with a civil set, mostly dealing with PI and clinical negligence.
Why were you there then? A witness?tenpenceshort said:
I was shadowing a barrister involved in the case. A mini-pupillage is a few days in chambers/court as a sort of work experience.
What area of law are you looking at going into. My pathetic and boring life has lead me to have dealings with all sorts. IfI had my time again id trade my sillyness in for earning a pittance as a criminal solicitor. Whilst it's not highly paid from my experience it would be interesting and rewarding.
tenpenceshort said:
I've spent the past week in chambers with a civil set, mostly dealing with PI and clinical negligence.
One of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
Bold bit above is why the claim against me was settled 50/50 despite the other tOne of the biggest surprises this week has been how little some counsel will charge insurers for attending trial (we're talking low 3 figures), and therefore how low value claims are being taken to trial. For example, one this week was attended by counsel for both sides at the small claims, over the princely sum of £1800 (settled 50/50). I also note, the insurers had instructed independent investigators to do site visits in this case.
What also surprised me was how willing insurers are now to litigate cash-for-crash claims. An insured who hit the back of another car late at night, no independent witnesses, insisted the leading car braked on purpose. Again, the claim is very low value, but will be allocated to multi-track, trial in 2015, probably 4 or 5 parties to the litigation, fraud alleged by the insurer. I imagine in this case the loser(s) will be picking up legal bills in excess of £50,000 for a claim (with 'injury') worth four or five thousand at best.
I was previously under the impression insurers were unwilling to spend money litigating small claims, which it appears, I was wrong about. So there you go.
t being completely at fault and lying through his teeth (no witnesses). I was 
at the time as he also claimed for a whiplash injury despite the impact happening at about 10mph and involving no rear shunt!TX.
Terminator X said:
Bold bit above is why the claim against me was settled 50/50 despite the other tt being completely at fault and lying through his teeth (no witnesses). I was at the time as he also claimed for a whiplash injury despite the impact happening at about 10mph and involving no rear shunt!
TX.
Have a look at the van thread from yesterday, one poster actively supporting the idea of lying in a clear fault claim. t being completely at fault and lying through his teeth (no witnesses). I was at the time as he also claimed for a whiplash injury despite the impact happening at about 10mph and involving no rear shunt!TX.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff