Insurance - benefits of legal cover?.
Discussion
Legal cover is useful for a number of reasons and IMO is worth having.
One of the easiest to explain is that if you have a no-fault claim and have to pay out your £400 excess (or whatever) the legal people will chase for recovery of your £400 from the other driver at fault, or their insurer.
One of the easiest to explain is that if you have a no-fault claim and have to pay out your £400 excess (or whatever) the legal people will chase for recovery of your £400 from the other driver at fault, or their insurer.
I missed an exam because a first bus crashed into both my cars while parked outside.
Lawyers provided by the legal cover are claiming because I'm missing out on my summer placement in Germany to resit a stupid exam. lost wages + travel expenses for going to summer classes at uni.
Made it a lot less stressful. Well worth it though, I'm losing about 10k just because of the accident.
Lawyers provided by the legal cover are claiming because I'm missing out on my summer placement in Germany to resit a stupid exam. lost wages + travel expenses for going to summer classes at uni.
Made it a lot less stressful. Well worth it though, I'm losing about 10k just because of the accident.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Legal cover is useful for a number of reasons and IMO is worth having.
One of the easiest to explain is that if you have a no-fault claim and have to pay out your £400 excess (or whatever) the legal people will chase for recovery of your £400 from the other driver at fault, or their insurer.
Really? I've had two no fault claims and both time my insurance company has refunded the excess as soon as they've established that I'm not at fault.One of the easiest to explain is that if you have a no-fault claim and have to pay out your £400 excess (or whatever) the legal people will chase for recovery of your £400 from the other driver at fault, or their insurer.
The way I see it, there are several possible scenarios:
1. You're at fault, you admit liability - the insurance will defend their interests related to the claim; you have no need of legal cover.
2. You're at fault, you deny liability - as above, really. The insurer (whether the main policy or the legal expenses element) will make a commercial decision and probably decline to fight.
3. You're not at fault, the other side admits liability. You would be able to get a solicitor to act for you on a contingency fee basis (e.g., in relation to quantum of damages from an injury claim) and the other insurer should deal with reasonabe claims. If they are being unreasonable about losses despite admitting primary liability, you may not be able to get the insurer's support to deal with uninsured losses, and a solicitor may be prohibitively expensive in the absence of a PI claim. LEI may be useful there.
4. You're not at fault, the other side denies liability. The insurer will fight to recover their own costs if the case is strong enough. If it is not strong enough, LEI won't help as they'd be onto a loser just as much as the insurer would be. If the insurer is successful on liability but the insurer is unreasonable on uninsured losses, then point 3 applies.
So basically, it's useful for dealing with uninsured but recoverable losses, where the third party insurer is "being unreasonable" by which I mean entering into gamesmanship - inviting the claimant to begin proceedings rather than making admissions and offers from the outset. Some insurers will take that strategy, but in most cases, most will not.
1. You're at fault, you admit liability - the insurance will defend their interests related to the claim; you have no need of legal cover.
2. You're at fault, you deny liability - as above, really. The insurer (whether the main policy or the legal expenses element) will make a commercial decision and probably decline to fight.
3. You're not at fault, the other side admits liability. You would be able to get a solicitor to act for you on a contingency fee basis (e.g., in relation to quantum of damages from an injury claim) and the other insurer should deal with reasonabe claims. If they are being unreasonable about losses despite admitting primary liability, you may not be able to get the insurer's support to deal with uninsured losses, and a solicitor may be prohibitively expensive in the absence of a PI claim. LEI may be useful there.
4. You're not at fault, the other side denies liability. The insurer will fight to recover their own costs if the case is strong enough. If it is not strong enough, LEI won't help as they'd be onto a loser just as much as the insurer would be. If the insurer is successful on liability but the insurer is unreasonable on uninsured losses, then point 3 applies.
So basically, it's useful for dealing with uninsured but recoverable losses, where the third party insurer is "being unreasonable" by which I mean entering into gamesmanship - inviting the claimant to begin proceedings rather than making admissions and offers from the outset. Some insurers will take that strategy, but in most cases, most will not.
"What is Motor Legal Protection?
"If you are involved in an accident that is not your fault, you have a legal right to claim back your uninsured losses (losses not covered by your vehicle insurance policy), from the person who caused the accident. When you take out Legal Cover, we will try to recover these losses for you and should you need to take legal action, we will appoint a solicitor to represent you.
"Our Legal Cover provides:
• Assistance in obtaining compensation for personal injury and cover for medical expenses.
• Cover for losses resulting from the accident: ie loss of earnings, phone bills and travel costs.
• Recovery of your excess if you are not at fault for the accident.
• Assistance in arranging and claiming back cost of repairs for Third Party Fire & Theft or Third Party policy."
"If you are involved in an accident that is not your fault, you have a legal right to claim back your uninsured losses (losses not covered by your vehicle insurance policy), from the person who caused the accident. When you take out Legal Cover, we will try to recover these losses for you and should you need to take legal action, we will appoint a solicitor to represent you.
"Our Legal Cover provides:
• Assistance in obtaining compensation for personal injury and cover for medical expenses.
• Cover for losses resulting from the accident: ie loss of earnings, phone bills and travel costs.
• Recovery of your excess if you are not at fault for the accident.
• Assistance in arranging and claiming back cost of repairs for Third Party Fire & Theft or Third Party policy."
Ozzie Osmond said:
"What is Motor Legal Protection?
"If you are involved in an accident that is not your fault, you have a legal right to claim back your uninsured losses (losses not covered by your vehicle insurance policy), from the person who caused the accident. When you take out Legal Cover, we will try to recover these losses for you and should you need to take legal action, we will appoint a solicitor to represent you.
"Our Legal Cover provides:
• Assistance in obtaining compensation for personal injury and cover for medical expenses.
• Cover for losses resulting from the accident: ie loss of earnings, phone bills and travel costs.
• Recovery of your excess if you are not at fault for the accident.
• Assistance in arranging and claiming back cost of repairs for Third Party Fire & Theft or Third Party policy."
Cheers Oz"If you are involved in an accident that is not your fault, you have a legal right to claim back your uninsured losses (losses not covered by your vehicle insurance policy), from the person who caused the accident. When you take out Legal Cover, we will try to recover these losses for you and should you need to take legal action, we will appoint a solicitor to represent you.
"Our Legal Cover provides:
• Assistance in obtaining compensation for personal injury and cover for medical expenses.
• Cover for losses resulting from the accident: ie loss of earnings, phone bills and travel costs.
• Recovery of your excess if you are not at fault for the accident.
• Assistance in arranging and claiming back cost of repairs for Third Party Fire & Theft or Third Party policy."
It begs the question "If I'm not at fault, why aren't the insurers trying to recover my costs anyway (regardless of whether I have LEI or not)"?
Who decides who is at fault?
What happens if its a 50:50 (even though Im damn sure it wasnt my fault)?
If they deem its 50:50 are you sure their legal cover will take over? Even if you take out independent legal cover such as RAC, dont they now put a 'only if we think it's not your fault' test on it?
If it really wasnt your fault you need someone independent who believes and will stand your ground for you
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
Leave aside any arguments about if you have a normal house and it's damaged you should only be loaned a tent to live in while if you live in a mansion you should only get a normal house.
If it really wasnt your fault you need someone independent who believes and will stand your ground for you
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
Leave aside any arguments about if you have a normal house and it's damaged you should only be loaned a tent to live in while if you live in a mansion you should only get a normal house.
Meths said:
I missed an exam because a first bus crashed into both my cars while parked outside.
Lawyers provided by the legal cover are claiming because I'm missing out on my summer placement in Germany to resit a stupid exam. lost wages + travel expenses for going to summer classes at uni.
Made it a lot less stressful. Well worth it though, I'm losing about 10k just because of the accident.
You say they are claiming? Have they been successful or is it still ongoing? It sounds a bit remote to me, like a consequential loss that the guilty party could not have reasonably foreseen, so may not be liable for.Lawyers provided by the legal cover are claiming because I'm missing out on my summer placement in Germany to resit a stupid exam. lost wages + travel expenses for going to summer classes at uni.
Made it a lot less stressful. Well worth it though, I'm losing about 10k just because of the accident.
Just because someone is negligent, doesn't mean their liability is extended to all losses. Suppose you were on your way to buy your lotto ticket, and the accident stopped you from buying it, and your numbers came up. Would the t.p. be responsible for your £6m loss? I don't think so.
Countdown said:
It begs the question "If I'm not at fault, why aren't the insurers trying to recover my costs anyway (regardless of whether I have LEI or not)"?
Insurers can only recover what they insured. i.e. Insured losses like damage to your car. They can't recover things that they didn't insure...your....wait for it...uninsured losses. That is the legal principle, they are allowed to "stand in your shoes" having paid for your car to be fixed and sue the third party. Subrogation.
In terms of benefits...there are arguments for and against.
Solicitors have to make money somehow, and below a certain amount won't take on a case as costs won't be recoverable, i.e. just to get your £250 back. There are also some issues around Foreign Claims that LEI may make easier. You will have to buy some sort of insurance anyway, to protect your self from being liable for the other sides costs - even if you win.
On the other hand, there is the argument that referral fees (illegal from next month) meant that you would get less service that had you gone "direct". The MoJ hasn't found any evidence of this, but it is worth thinking about.
Most of the real "against" arguments are about the mis-selling rather than the product. LEI has some high level backing as it promotes access to justice.
However very few insurers/brokers do much checking into the requirements of the customer for the add-ons. It may only be £20, but it should be checked if you already have cover on another car etc etc. For this reason the OFT is looking into sales of add-ons.
CYMR0 said:
The way I see it, there are several possible scenarios:
1. You're at fault, you admit liability - the insurance will defend their interests related to the claim; you have no need of legal cover.
2. You're at fault, you deny liability - as above, really. The insurer (whether the main policy or the legal expenses element) will make a commercial decision and probably decline to fight.
3. You're not at fault, the other side admits liability. You would be able to get a solicitor to act for you on a contingency fee basis (e.g., in relation to quantum of damages from an injury claim) and the other insurer should deal with reasonabe claims. If they are being unreasonable about losses despite admitting primary liability, you may not be able to get the insurer's support to deal with uninsured losses, and a solicitor may be prohibitively expensive in the absence of a PI claim. LEI may be useful there.
4. You're not at fault, the other side denies liability. The insurer will fight to recover their own costs if the case is strong enough. If it is not strong enough, LEI won't help as they'd be onto a loser just as much as the insurer would be. If the insurer is successful on liability but the insurer is unreasonable on uninsured losses, then point 3 applies.
So basically, it's useful for dealing with uninsured but recoverable losses, where the third party insurer is "being unreasonable" by which I mean entering into gamesmanship - inviting the claimant to begin proceedings rather than making admissions and offers from the outset. Some insurers will take that strategy, but in most cases, most will not.
Pretty much agree, except that where the third party insurer is "being unreasonable" you are, in my experience, better off going straight to the Small Claims Court (or instructing your own solicitor).1. You're at fault, you admit liability - the insurance will defend their interests related to the claim; you have no need of legal cover.
2. You're at fault, you deny liability - as above, really. The insurer (whether the main policy or the legal expenses element) will make a commercial decision and probably decline to fight.
3. You're not at fault, the other side admits liability. You would be able to get a solicitor to act for you on a contingency fee basis (e.g., in relation to quantum of damages from an injury claim) and the other insurer should deal with reasonabe claims. If they are being unreasonable about losses despite admitting primary liability, you may not be able to get the insurer's support to deal with uninsured losses, and a solicitor may be prohibitively expensive in the absence of a PI claim. LEI may be useful there.
4. You're not at fault, the other side denies liability. The insurer will fight to recover their own costs if the case is strong enough. If it is not strong enough, LEI won't help as they'd be onto a loser just as much as the insurer would be. If the insurer is successful on liability but the insurer is unreasonable on uninsured losses, then point 3 applies.
So basically, it's useful for dealing with uninsured but recoverable losses, where the third party insurer is "being unreasonable" by which I mean entering into gamesmanship - inviting the claimant to begin proceedings rather than making admissions and offers from the outset. Some insurers will take that strategy, but in most cases, most will not.
Briefly, some years ago, my car was hit whilst parked, hence 100% third party liability. Regardless, the other side's insurers were complete Asshats.
So, "Legal insurance to the rescue" or so I thought. But no, as it turned out. Indeed the only effect of involving the legal insurance bods was to delay the settlement by some months, before the Legal-Insurance-provided solicitors decided that there was "No realistic prospect of success (WTF? It was 100% 3rd party liability).
So, having accepted an interim payment, I obtained a Small Claims Court summons for the balance of my claim.
The case never made it to court: The 3rd party insurers paid out immediately on receipt of the summons.
I haven't bothered with legal insurance since.
14 Years ago a 13 year old ran into me on a stolen moped.
I had to claim on my insurance for the damage to my car, and let the uninured loss/ legal protection claw back my excess.
9 months later, they couldnt because "he wasnt insured"
So why is it called "uninsured loss recovery"???
Never bothered since, i use accident management companies for non fault claims and avoid using my insurance.
I had to claim on my insurance for the damage to my car, and let the uninured loss/ legal protection claw back my excess.
9 months later, they couldnt because "he wasnt insured"
So why is it called "uninsured loss recovery"???
Never bothered since, i use accident management companies for non fault claims and avoid using my insurance.
nottyash said:
9 months later, they couldnt because "he wasnt insured"
So why is it called "uninsured loss recovery"???
Because it's attempting to claim your uninsured losses (your excess). The word "uninsured" in the title doesn't refer to uninsured drivers. It doesn't pay you in lieu of the guilty party being uninsured. The policy attempts to claim back your uninsured losses, but it doesn't guarantee success.So why is it called "uninsured loss recovery"???
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff