Latest Keoghs Insight

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Grant v Secretary of State for Transport: Guidance on Mesothelioma quantum

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Blake v Croasdale & esure [2017] EWHC 1336 (QB)

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Asymptomatic Silicosis Update: Feeney v Tarmac Sandstone Limited and one other

Client Alerts||26/06/2017

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd

Client Alerts||23/06/2017

Ex-wife’s tip-off uncovers case of stolen identity leading to award of exemplary damages

News And Events||02/08/2017

Keoghs research warns of large rise in opportunistic insurance fraud

News And Events||17/07/2017

Keoghs launches 2017 apprenticeship programme

News And Events||09/06/2017

Scotland team expands at Keoghs one month after Glasgow office unveiled

News And Events||01/06/2017

Keoghs proud to support Bolton Wanderers Community Trust

News And Events||26/04/2017

Keoghs accelerates growth with move into Scotland

News And Events||19/04/2017

Keoghs sign up to new Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) affiliate membership

News And Events||05/04/2017

Keoghs celebrates award for fledgling apprenticeship scheme

News And Events||10/03/2017

Manslaughter consultation shows intent but lack of clarity

Blogs||11/08/2017

Counting the (wasted) cost of LNC

Blogs||02/08/2017

Credit hire: A strategic approach

Blogs||26/07/2017

Preserving insurers’ recovery rights following escape of water

Blogs||20/07/2017

Who is David Lidington?

Blogs||12/06/2017

Jackson v The Sugababes? Don’t delay… push the button!

Blogs||12/05/2017

Examining a Court of Appeal decision concerning the adequacy of Local Authority systems

Blogs||28/04/2017

Jumping for joy?

Blogs||24/04/2017

Credit Hire Aware 12

AWARE||19/07/2017

Costs Aware Issue 3

AWARE||22/06/2017

Property Aware 5

AWARE||14/06/2017

Credit Hire Aware 11

AWARE||21/12/2016

Fraud Aware 5

AWARE||27/10/2016

Costs Aware 2

AWARE||24/10/2016

Disease Aware 8

AWARE||05/10/2016

Credit Hire Aware 10

AWARE||18/08/2016

Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.

Author

Ben Leech

Ben Leech

Associate

T: 01204 672320

Counting the (wasted) cost of LNC

Blogs||02/08/2017

With the Government’s proposed Civil Liabilities Bill shrouded in uncertainty and no further information likely to be forthcoming prior to October, Late Notified Claims (LNC) continue to plague insurers.

The latest MoJ figures highlight that volumes of LNCs have not fallen away, perhaps in part due to the stay of execution granted to claimant solicitors and claims management companies following the general election announcement.

Nevertheless, there is a clear strategy to be employed when dealing with such claims, and the key to this is often the relationship between claimant and professional adviser. With a claimant required to fully engage in the process, disrupting this association can often yield highly successful resolutions for insurers, whilst embedding these strategies within your claims handling team can provide optimal results.

In terms of support, there is no doubt that judicial attitude in this area is clearly hardening which can only aid the defence of such cases. Indeed, HHJ Gregory recently stated when dismissing one late notified claim, “I regard the more venal conduct to be that of the solicitors”; a clear indication, if one was needed, that the judiciary understand the real abusive behaviours can emanate from the professional enablers rather than the claimants themselves.

This stance can be utilised in conjunction with an important but often overlooked legal tool; the ‘wasted costs’ provisions within the Civil Procedure Rules. These costs arise from unreasonable or improper conduct and can be used as a powerful weapon against professional enablers, hitting them hard in the pocket and impacting heavily on their profit margins.

In one particularly pertinent case, the judge commented that an application by claimant solicitors to debar the defendant from relying on call recording evidence was “preposterous” and “totally without merit”. The judge agreed that the application was “lawyer led” and the claimant’s solicitors were forced to pay a five figure sum in respect of wasted costs.  

In a more recent instance, the claimant’s solicitors were removed from the court record on the day of trial, resulting in an adjourned trial and a show cause application outlining why the solicitors ought not to pay the costs of the trial. A further example saw five claims struck out by the court following the claimant solicitor’s failure to comply with the court rules correctly; the judge providing a strong indication, once again by ordering a show cause application, that the costs associated with the claim ought to be paid by the solicitors.

All in all, this strategy has seen some excellent outcomes for insurers with the figures to back up trial wins. By attacking the behaviours of enablers, both directly through wasted costs and indirectly with continued success in defeating such claims, one insurer has seen a 30% reduction in the number of LNC presented on a like for like basis over a 12 month period.

When implementing all facets of LNC strategy and utilising in-house to provide a holistic approach, the results are compelling. In one recent example, Keoghs helped buck the trend by applying a robust and consistent strategy within an insurer’s dedicated team. The combination of bespoke scorecard and hands on training meant the insurer was able to readily identify LNC cases worthy of investigation and repudiation. That, in partnership with Keoghs, who dealt with any litigation arising out of those claims, ensured a 77% kick out or ‘nil payment’ was achieved on such litigated files, aligned with an 80% trial success rate.

Whilst it can be tempting to focus on the behaviour of a claimant, it is vital that insurers’ endeavours also take into account the professional enablers who are encouraging and facilitating such abusive and unnecessary late notified claims. Indeed, enablers can be all too ready to cut a claimant loose, whether they have been dishonest or not, leaving them high and dry to deal with the fall out. With casualties on both sides of the fence, it is only when enablers are consistently hit in the pocket that they will change their approach to LNC.