Any conflict of interest is “bad bad bad” (this pithy definition is from an esteemed colleague).
Solicitors failing to check whether or not they are acting for both claimant and defendant is a classic and now brokers are under examination from regulators.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has announced that they are taking a dim view of brokers who are placing business, not with syndicates or insurance companies, but with Managing General Agency MGA (binders) they run. Brokers do this to improve their earnings in “soft” markets, i.e. premiums are low.
The conflict of interest is receiving a fee for managing the facility, brokerage for placing the business with the binder and sometimes profit commission. All this without having to leave the office.
Who benefits from these arrangements? Yes the insured has a policy. Yes the insurance company receives a premium. However the “conflicted” broker earns brokerage and also a binder management fee, and may not be clearly explaining what they have done or why to the insured, who may be expecting their broker to act independently, as their agent.
The ATE market is not exempt from these issues. The question is whether or not the client receives best advice and the best policy. As brokers, we look at the market and obtain as many quotes as we can, only then do we recommend what, in our view, is the most appropriate for that particular client. We have always clearly stated in our paperwork the basis of our terms, be they open or restricted markets, in FCA speak this is Treating Customers Fairly.
This conflict of interest issue has in fact come full circle over the last 30 years when the Neill report (1986)) said exactly the same thing: brokers owning insurance companies/placing business with a binder is a conflict of interest. As with our recent blog on mesothelioma, do we never learn?
The FCA is issuing guidance, although they are not being prescriptive (yet) as to what will be done. So watch this space.

Premiums for after the event mesothelioma claims continue to be recoverable. Further, the recent Supreme Court ruling (Percy Leonard McDonald v Department for Communities and Local Government/National Grid Electricity/Transmissions PLC) has considerably widened the net with respect to who can claim for industrial related mesothelioma.
Despite the fact he had never worked with asbestos, Mr McDonald, a lorry driver, picked up industrial waste products (crushed fuel ash) from Battersea Power Station for four years in the 1950s. At times he walked through areas where laggers where working with raw asbestos.
National Electricity Grid argued that Mr McDonald could not receive compensation because he was not directly employed in contact with asbestos, initially, a County Court Judge in Bristol found in favour of the Defendants.
The claimant appealed and The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge.
Subsequently the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court who found that the occupier is responsible for all people on site, not just direct employees in accordance with the Factories Act 1961.
The judgment also clarified that asbestos industry regulations applied to all premises using asbestos not just those involved in the asbestos industry.
At the same time a recent report by the Justice Select Committee (JSC) concluded that the Government’s attempt to extend sections 44 & 46 of LASPOA to mesothelioma claims from next July should be delayed until Government Ministers had completed a review. This review should only be carried out when sufficient data was available for the effects of LASPOA on other forms of claim could be assessed. This will have the effect of delaying implementation for some time.
Finally, one aspect which intrigues me is that 2,000 years ago the Romans knew that slaves who worked in asbestos mines died of lung disease. The HSE’s latest projection is that UK mesothelioma claims will now only peak in 2016. We never learn!

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr728.pdf

We all ‘suffer’ from marketing, phone calls in the evening, junk mail, tv advertising, newspaper and magazine advertising, the lists is endless.
So, why do companies do it? It only seems to upset potential customers. Well the answer is very simple: IT WORKS.
With the increasing sophistication of the internet, adverts are everywhere. I used to hate this but am now a convert, research is simple, goods are everywhere (on my small screen). Vague ideas are firmed up and ordered in minutes.
Is advertising selling? Not really, you are presented with ideas but may not there and then have the opportunity to buy, you have to make an effort.
Here at QLP we do market but use the old fashioned method. Personal contact via the telephone followed up by emails and (hopefully) a face to face meeting (even that can be via a video link), does that count as face to face?
We bring new ideas and products to the market all the time. Each has its special nuances and the only way to explain them is in a meeting. So if you get a call from QLP, please take it, you never know, we may have just what you were looking for or indeed an idea you did not know existed. Think of Steve Jobs and the ipad, before he announced it no one knew what it was, now how can you function without one?

Why is it that the multi-media language employs the older less fancy Anglo Saxon lexicon: ‘poke’, ‘like’, “hit” “follow” and others for which I hesitate to ask a youngster the latest definition. (Choice Anglo Saxon also works for Monday mornings when the system won’t work.)

As regular readers will know there are many ways you can communicate and interact with us (Latin derivations), starting with the old fashioned telephone call through to the whole panoply of multi-media.

You can find us on any of:

-Twitter @LegalQLP

-Blogs Follow the news from our website

-LinkedIn QLP Legal

-Website www.qlp.ltd.uk

-Telephone: 020 7626 0191

and feel free to hit, poke, like and follow us or look for any of our interactive application forms for subjects such as:

-Funding

-After the Event insurance (for individuals)

-After the Event insurance (for schemes)

-Professional indemnity insurance

Now the shameless plug: check out our Clin Neg disbursement funding and products for Commercial litigators, as ever click here to find out more:

http://www.qlp.ltd.uk/what-we-do/third-party-litigation-funding/

However, if you are like me and still have not fully got to grips with all of this 21st century technology and prefer to do it the old fashioned way (face to face!) please contact us to arrange a meeting.

Some years ago defendant insurers kicked up a fuss about the cost of success fees and After the Event (ATE) premiums in RTA cases. Apparently this raised the costs of all motor insurance and we all had to pay for it.
In April 2013 the Jackson reforms provided the solution and the defendant insurers were happy, car insurance premiums would fall for all.
18 months later, defendant insurers are again complaining.
Shock horror, fixed fees and the portal have had the desired effect, costs are falling but damages have started to increase. With success fees coming from damages (up to 25%) and damages going up by 10% to compensate for such, what did the defendant insurers expect claimant lawyers to do? If a business model works all is fine, if the income falls (reduced fees) then something has to give. Firms could go out of business with all the consequent problems or fight back and change the business model. It’s called survival.
This is not the only reason damages are increasing, previously unused heads of claim are being put forward. More sophisticated arguments are being used, psychological loss is more prominent but how is it quantified?.
This reminds me of the ‘cold war’ arms race. All it does is increase costs to BOTH sides. What is needed is a compromise, everybody gets a fair share and all are happy, is that too much to ask?
When I get home tonight I will be checking the bottom of the garden to see how the fairies are getting on!!
One way for claimant solicitors to push harder for their clients is to insure early, this protects clients and gives them the means to fight. Currently it is possible to have cover of £50,000 for between £90 and £500 for straightforward cases. Policies provide cover for own disbursements and other sides’ costs on failure to beat a Part 36 Offer. If you wait until a Part 36 Offer is received then the cover may be more expensive or not available.
The market is constantly changing, so the best way forward?
Use QLP to keep up to date with the market.