We have all come across seriously questionable behaviour from insurers over the last few years.
But I have today, come across a letter that is so alarming it deserves a blog!
EAD are acting for a client who suffered an accident at work in April 2016. He suffered a nasty shoulder injury. He has not been able to return to work. He has had on-going treatment including surgery.
He is a member of a Trade Union and was referred to EAD by the union. A claim was submitted in May 2017, almost 2 full years within primary limitation.
The insurers for his employers have responded as follows –
‘We are genuinely surprised to receive an injury claim from your client at such a late stage, as typically such claims are pursued within the first few weeks of the accident itself. We are of the opinion that this claim has the hallmarks of one borne out of active marketing and may not have arisen but for this. In our experience, a material proportion of late notification injury claims might be potentially exaggerated.
As such, to fulfil our obligation to our client/insured, we are obliged to seek your client's detailed reasons for the late notification of this claim.
As you are aware, Paragraph 6.6 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury claims, states the Claims Notification Form can be signed the claimant's representative where the claimant has authorised the legal representative to do so and written evidence can be produced on that authorisation. Please therefore forward a copy of your client's signed authority form.’
They have refused to deal with it and simply advised that proceedings should be issued forthwith.
So there we have it.
Client suffers nasty injury. Seeks help from his union. His union refers him to panel solicitors. This is then alleged to be a claim acquired by questionable means and ‘potentially exaggerated’ into the bargain.
The mind boggles.