Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence


Evidence submitted by Allianz Cornhill Legal Protection (ACLP)

  Allianz Cornhill Legal Protection (ACLP) are a trading division of Allianz Cornhill. ACLP specialises in underwriting Legal expenses insurance. ACLP have underwritten "before the event" insurance since the late 1980's and in April 2000 started underwriting "after the event" insurance for personal injury cases.

  ACLP ate arm deal with approximately 700 solicitors practices of varying size. We are the underwriter for the National Accident Helpline scheme, and have other intermediaries who promote our policies to their solicitors on a delegated authority basis. The solicitors who use our ATE policies are obliged, by the terms of their contract with ACLP to only use our policies for all their clients so as to prevent selection against us.

  We would like to respond to the following terms of reference:-

Q1.   Does the "compensation culture" exist?

    —  Our view is that the press have coined the phrase "compensation culture" as a headline. There have been abuses of the system by certain claims management companies whose business models have been sustained through encouraging people, who relied on the advice provided by the CMC, to bring a claim.

    —  As in all walks of life there will be those who are clearly fraudulent. And of course this must be prevented. On the other hand it is right that people who are injured through the negligence of another party know that they can claim compensation.

    —  We have no statistics on this tranch of business prior to 2000. There were the spikes in 2000 (caused by new access to justice and the mopping up of claims still within limitation); and in 2001-03 caused by TAG and CD activity. But 2004—05 shows a more "normal" level of cases insured. This experience is supported by independant research companies such as Datamonitor.

Q2.   What has been the effect of the move to "no win no-fee" Contingency Fee Agreements?

    —  Please note that the word used above should be "conditional" not contingency.

    —  There have been a number of technical challenges brought by liability insurers which has caused some unrest amongst ate underwriters. The removal of the CFA regulations from Statute to the Law Society Rules should create more certainty provided clear guidance is provided by the Law Society to their members.

    —  Market research carried out by us earlier in the year indicated that customers were uncomfortable with the level of paperwork involved to enable them to bring a claim and were not aware of the need to have insurance unless the solicitor discussed this with them.

    —  ACLP would like it to be a requirement that all CFA's are backed up by an ate insurance policy which indemnifies the client for 3rd party costs and un-recovered disbursements should they lose their case.

Q3.   Is the notion of a compensation culture leading to unnecessary risk averseness in public bodies?

    —  ACLP is not in a position to answer this.

Q4.   Should firms which refer people, manage or advertise Conditional Fee Agreements be subject to regulation?

    —  Yes

    —  The regulator should be entirely independent and not partly a trade body.

    —  Regulation should not allow those who do not want to be regulated to avoid this by having their business registered and operating outside the UK jurisdiction.

    —  In addition to requirements outlined in the bill it should include a requirement for:

    —  the CMC remuneration method to be transparent.

    —  The full trading address to be available on the internet and on all paperwork—a lot of CMC's operate on a "virtual" basis; and

    —  if they do offer "insurance" full details of the provider should be given and with their credit rating, solvency and where they are located.

Q5.   Should any changes be made to the current laws relating to negligence?

    —  The definition of negligence should remain as it is—the wording of the compensation bill which refers to widening the terms for negligence will just open up another can of worms which will need interpretation in the courts. The clause "- desirable activity" could refer to one wanting to go to work!

Divisional Manager

November 2005


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 10 March 2006