Supplementary evidence from Paul Evans,
AXA UK
I am writing in connection with my appearance to
provide oral evidence to the Transport Select Committee's enquiry
into the cost of motor insurance. During the session, I was asked
by Mr Harris, "You mentioned alternative business structures.
Is it correct that AXA is not going down that road and you have
no plans at all to buy Knight Law Ltd, for example?" I replied
correctly that, "Knight Law operates for us as a defendant;
that is, it supports our defence of personal injury claims. It
does not prosecute claims—that is, represent the claimants—and
never will." Mr Harris then pressed, "You have no intention
of purchasing it," to which I replied, "I have no intention
of purchasing it. To be fair, I think I own part of it but I would
need to clarify that. I have no intention whatsoever of it prosecuting
personal injury claims against insurers." I would like to
clarify this last point.
In the moment, I could not remember whether AXA owned
all, or part of Knight Law, but I knew we had no acquisitions
planned, and observed I would need to clarify the extent of our
ownership. In fact AXA acquired 100% of Knight Law some years
ago through the acquisition of another company. I would like this
clarification to be recorded in the transcript. However, I note
that it does not change the substance of my reply to the core
of the question, which is that AXA does not intend to exploit
alternative business structures to allow Knight Legal to prosecute
personal injury claims so that AXA might profit from such claims.
October 2011
|
