FSA clarifies a policyholder's freedom to choose their own lawyer
Following the European Court of Justice’s decision in Erhard Eschig v UNIQA Sachversicherung AG (C-199/08), the director of the Financial Services Authority’s insurance sector has written to all legal expenses insurers to clarify the scope of s6 of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, which deals with the freedom of a policyholder to choose their own lawyer.
Gibbon v Manchester City Council
Gibbon v Manchester City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 726, has clarified the use of Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) relating to the offer and acceptance of settlements under the CPR. Part 36 was held by the Court of Appeal to be a “self contained code” which did not include any other law unless the CPR expressly included it. According to the Court of Appeal the CPR was specifically designed to be clear and certain so that ordinary people, with no legal training, could follow it without expert advice.
Part 36 allows a party to make multiple offers to settle for different amounts depending on how strong they feel their case is at that any given point in time. If an offer is rejected and the rejecting party fails to win a larger amount than that offer at trial they will have to pay the other side’s costs plus interest from 21 days after the date of that rejected offer. Under Part 36 offers remain on the table unless expressly withdrawn in writing and later offers do not revoke or amend earlier ones. This is in contrast to general contract law where only one offer can be valid at any one time. According to the Court of Appeal, the purpose of this multiple offer approach is to allow a party to leave various settlement offers on the table which, despite being initially rejected, can tempt the other side into acceptance later in the litigation process.
Quinn Administration Confirmed
Quinn Insurance has dropped its opposition to the appointment of administrators today and, as a result, Grant Thornton has been confirmed as administrator of the company by the Irish High Court. In our view this is classed as an Insolvency Event under the SRA’s Qualifying Insurer Agreement. Unless the SRA waives the Event under 19.1 of the Agreement then firms of solicitors holding professional indemnity insurance with Quinn will be required to obtain alternative cover within 28 days. The impact will be significant as firms may well see premiums soar. It is possible that some will not be able to obtain alternative quotes at all in which case the Assigned Risks Pool will be the only option if the firm wishes to continue to trade.
The SRA explicitly states that it does not vet or approve the qualifying insurers and a hard look should be taken at the advice given to firms by their insurance brokers.
Article from Post Magazine
For Post Magazine's comments on Fenchurch Law opening our doors, please click on the following link: http://www.postonline.co.uk/post/news/1593348/fenchurch-temple-tie