What the ? I wonder how many?

[T.C]

I had to feel sorry for a chap who called me a few days ago.

He was on his motorcycle when he was forced to take avoiding action because of a careless driver.

As a result of taking avoiding action he was unable to avoid hitting a pothole which in turn threw him off his bike and a 4x4 travelling in the opposite direction ran over him.

As a result, the rider sustained multiple life changing injuries including 120+ fractures to his head, a fractured eye socket, multiple fractures to ribs, arms, legs, nerve damage, sliced liver, punctured lungs (with many other injuries resulting in 4 weeks in intensive care) and which has now left him unable to work for the rest of his days.

His insurance campany and a law firm told him that he had no claim because of the circumstances even though they did not investigate or obtain full details.

As a result he let it go and did nothing further as he believed his insurance company and the law firm he spoke to knew what they were talking about.

By chance someone suggested that he had a chat with me to see if I might be able to help or give him some advice.

We had a long conversation and it was quickly obvious he had a very valid claim.

Trouble is, this crash happened 4 years ago and so statute of limitation kicked in.

He cannot plead incapacity because despite no memory and ongoing brain injury he is able to make his own decsions and so to my regret I was unable to help him.

But it got me wondering how many others (especially motorcyclists) have suffered life changing injuries through no fault of their own and been told they have no claim, do nothing further about it and then find later that they do in fact have a valid claim but by that time it is too late to do anything?

We regularly hear of the false and fictitious claims, but I bet there are just as many genuine claims that get passed by, bearing in mind that as a country we are not a litigious state. We are actually ranked about 40th

 

[Malone]

I often think, there but for the grace of god go I. My pal Dave lowsided on some icy road and slid across the carriageway and was run over and killed by a car coming in the opposite direction. Would I want to be alive in the case above?

 

[johnboy]

Now you tell me. Not long after I had bought the Bird (2002) enjoying a ride out, a 4x4 followed by a Merc then me, road opens up to dual carriageway 4x4 indicates left and pulls in to side/farm track/ unofficial layby, Merc goes for it, I oblige and follow suit daft tart in 4x4 then pulls out as I'm almost level, Merc and I brake hard, change in road surface and the front locks up and I hit the deck, bike slides down the road and just kisses the Mercs bumper, no damage to Merc. Bint very sorry gives details and fecks off. Because I wasn't hit by the 4x4 and I "over reacted" insurance/law firm not interested. Bike was repaired and the bruising faded. I thought it was extremely unfair and from then on I have never taken the legal cover.

 

[andyBeaker]

I often think, there but for the grace of god go I. My pal Dave lowsided on some icy road and slid across the carriageway and was run over and killed by a car coming in the opposite direction. Would I want to be alive in the case above?

Just shows the luck of the draw. I did a similar thing on a racing bike after hitting a big chunk of wood in the road, slipsped straight across to the other side of the road in a gap in the traffic right in front of a police car.

Lost the skin off an elbow, could have been much, much worse.

 

[T.C]

Now you tell me. Not long after I had bought the Bird (2002) enjoying a ride out, a 4x4 followed by a Merc then me, road opens up to dual carriageway 4x4 indicates left and pulls in to side/farm track/ unofficial layby, Merc goes for it, I oblige and follow suit daft tart in 4x4 then pulls out as I'm almost level, Merc and I brake hard, change in road surface and the front locks up and I hit the deck, bike slides down the road and just kisses the Mercs bumper, no damage to Merc. Bint very sorry gives details and fecks off. Because I wasn't hit by the 4x4 and I "over reacted" insurance/law firm not interested. Bike was repaired and the bruising faded. I thought it was extremely unfair and from then on I have never taken the legal cover.

Unless the injuries were valued at £1,000 or more (bruising only often fails to attain this value) and unless the cost f the claim for the bike exceeded £5,000, then the reason why a law firm would not take it on is because you would not have been able to recover your legal costs for any value under £5K and you would be liable.

Injury values are also increasing to £5K later this year, so any injury under £5,000 will not be able to recover legal costs, which is why legal expenses insurance will be quite a handy thing to have.

So your case is very different as the decision to take it on would have been based very much on the overall value of the case.

Even now, a case such as yours would be a fast track portal case and would be subject to legal fees of a maximum of £800 which is why so many firms are pulling out of personal injury because you really need a conveyor belt system to turn the cases over fast to keep the cash flow going.

 

[Centaur]

Unless the injuries were valued at £1,000 or more (bruising only often fails to attain this value) and unless the cost f the claim for the bike exceeded £5,000, then the reason why a law firm would not take it on is because you would not have been able to recover your legal costs for any value under £5K and you would be liable.

Injury values are also increasing to £5K later this year, so any injury under £5,000 will not be able to recover legal costs, which is why legal expenses insurance will be quite a handy thing to have.

So your case is very different as the decision to take it on would have been based very much on the overall value of the case.

Even now, a case such as yours would be a fast track portal case and would be subject to legal fees of a maximum of £800 which is why so many firms are pulling out of personal injury because you really need a conveyor belt system to turn the cases over fast to keep the cash flow going.

The problem with legal expenses insurance is that they decide whether or not to take up your case and it seems to me they will only take on cases where they are certain to win when you don't really need them. When it's a bit iffy they don't want to know.

 

[T.C]

The problem with legal expenses insurance is that they decide whether or not to take up your case and it seems to me they will only take on cases where they are certain to win when you don't really need them. When it's a bit iffy they don't want to know.

Not strictly true anymore.

Until about 3 years ago that was the case, but then the rules changed where it became illegal for the legal insurers to nsist that you use a panel firm.

In other words, by law, an individual is allowed to use whatever law firm they wish or choose and the LEI insurers must continue funding, providing the solicitors have done a proper risk assessment which is a civil procedure rules requirement.

So in simple terms, if the law firm/solicitor decided that there is a case, the LEI has no say.

So it has bugger all to do with the LEI, it is to do with the evidence and whether on the balance of probability of 51% or better the case stands a chance of success.

The other thing is that using LEI (regardless of which law firm you use) the success fee of up to 25% cannot be deducted as it can on Conditional Fee Agreement (no win no fee) currently

 

[Jaws]

So yet another case of an insurance company absolutely ripping someone off..

It really is about time ALL insurance companies were held liable to criminal proceedings ( not just civil ) when they give false information