Posts Tagged ‘claims’
Imagine this; first thing in the morning when you’re on your way to work, some idiot driver ploughs into the rear of your car. So, you exchange details and decide to call your insurance company later that day.
You go home to sort through the problems the accident has caused, and before you manage to make the call to your insurer, someone is at the door? This person represents the other drivers insurance company and he carries a check made out to you, to compensate you for your injuries!!
Now, with startling regularity, we hear about this kind of thing happening after a road traffic accident has occurred. It’s certainly a very quick response and perhaps seems too good to be true. Well it is! In fact the consequences of accepting an on the spot offer could be serious indeed.
There has to be something dubious about being able to offer a person compensation for injuries prior to them having taken legal advice or establishing the extent of the injuries with a medical professional. Indeed in some cases, an offer of compensation has been made before there’s even time for the crash debris to be cleared from the road.
Under the guise of a ‘pro-active service’, these quick fix offers come down to a money saving exercise. A person accepting this kind of quick compensation will be asked to sign a document to say that the one off payment settles claims relating to the incident in full. This means whatever kind of accident aftermath unfolds, no further claims can be made.
Any professional with knowledge of personal injury will explain that the seriousness of a person’s injuries following an accident cannot be determined for some time after the accident happens, certainly hours, and sometimes days. In fact in cases of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or other psychological problems, the symptoms often do not manifest for some considerable time after the accident.
It’s certainly true that you may not receive as much money in compensation by accepting a quick fix payment but more importantly, you run the risk of missing out on the required treatment you might need in order to recover.
It is recommended that anyone involved in a road traffic accident should seek legal advice before settling a personal injury claim. A specialist personal injury lawyer will ensure that the claimant is sufficiently compensated for their injury and any subsequent loss.
As well as offering a no win, no fee service, good personal injury solicitors will make sure independent medical advice is sought, assess the extent of the claim, assess whether any treatment is needed and that all subsequent losses are recovered.
Unfortunately, some cases have been reported where people who accepted the same day compensation have suffered symptoms which continued for months or years after the accident occurred. In these cases, the claimants will have received less compensation than they were entitled to.
In an effort to regulate insurance companies in this area, the Motor Accident Solicitors Society and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers asked its members for evidence of these offers of early settlement of claims from insurers so that the former Financial Services Authority can be made properly aware of this activity.
Until new regulations are brought in, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) have unveiled a voluntary code of practice aimed at the insurance companies operating this practice.
This new ABI code states that the insurer must make clear to the claimant their right to seek independent legal advice, that insurers should not go to the claimants home but make contact by telephone, email, text message or letter.
A defamation claim by tennis player Robert Dee against the Daily Telegraph arguing that the paper had defamed him, has been thrown out by the High Court. Robert Dee had argued that the newspaper had defamed him by labelling him the “world’s worst tennis pro”.
David Engel, a partner at Addleshaw Goddard Solicitors has won over thirty settlements from media outlets on behalf of Dee who had sought damages on claims of defamation from various media outlets. In addition to a £12,500 settlement from the BBC, Dee has also secured various payments and apologies from media outlets across the globe.
Of all media outlets, only the Daily Telegraph had decided to challenge the claim and sought to have it struck out. For this, the newspaper instructed solicitor advocate David Price.
Published in April 2008, the original article, the focus of this defamatory claim stated that: “Robert Dee, 21, of Bexley, Kent, did not win a single match during his first three years on the circuit, touring at an estimated cost of £200,000”.
The article further stated that: “But his dismal run ended at the Reus tournament near Barcelona as he beat an unranked 17-year-old, Arzhang Derakshani, 6-4, 6-3. Dee lost in the second round.”
The arguments by Mr Dee’s solicitors were to the effect that the article in contention had exposed his client to ridicule and had been detrimental to Dee’s future ability to work.
This morning, Mrs Justice Sharp rejected this argument that the claim had any chance of success in higher court, concluding that: “It wouldn’t be immediately apparent how the claims would be likely to restore or enhance the claimant’s reputation in any event.”
In addition, Justice Sharp also said: “The incontestably true facts are that the claimant [Robert Dee] did lose 54 matches in a row in straight sets in his first three years on the world ranking ITF/ATP tournaments on the international professional tennis circuit, and that this was the worst ever run.”
The judge added that the Daily Telegraph had “no additional obligation” to prove that Dee “is objectively the worst professional tennis player in the world”.
Dee has issued a statement saying that he is considering whether or not to appeal this judgement by Justice Sharp.
In his statement, Dee says that: “Given that more than 30 newspapers and other media organisations have already apologised for making allegations similar to those published by the Telegraph, it’s disappointing that the court has decided that my case against the Telegraph isn’t strong enough to proceed to a full trial”.
Dee further states that: “It’s particularly disappointing in light of the fact that the court accepted that the Telegraph was “having a laugh” at my expense and that the article could be defamatory.”
Counsel:
Claimant: Addleshaw Goddard partner David Engel instructed Andrew Caldecott QC of One Brick Court and David Sherborne of 5RB for Robert Dee.
Defendant: The Daily Telegraph instructed solicitor advocate David Price of David Price Solicitors & Advocates.