Vik54 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) If like me you've ever suffered the indignity of having to allow a 50/50 settlement this will interest you. Along with my renewal from Churchill has come a tiny notice with some 'changes' which appear amongst other things to give them effectively free reign to settle things they can't be arsed fighting 50/50 (remember a few of years ago when Admiral refused to fight on my behalf and settled 50/50 after two years of faffing after that motorbike used my erse as a crash barrier?) Section 5 of Churchills tiny print 'Important Information' changes leaflet 5.Barristers Opinion If there are conflicting opinions over reasonable prospects of success you will be required to obtain an opinion from a barrister; the choice of barrister needs to be agreed between you and us. You will be responsible for paying for the opinion unless it shows that your claim has reasonable prospects of success. I read this as carte blanche for them to settle 50/50 - especially when read in conjunction with their section 7 7. Assessing and recovering costs We have the right to have costs certified by the appropriate professional body, audited by a costs draftsmen or assessed by a court not amused Edited May 14, 2015 by Vik54 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 insurance company just seem to be a bunch of con men lately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZEUS Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 insurance company just seem to be a bunch of con men lately Only lately? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMballistic Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 insurance company just seem to be a bunch of con men lately Only lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vik54 Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 insurance company just seem to be a bunch of con men lately Only lately? Aye - but this actually makes it explicit "If we can't be arsed sorting it - or we insure the other party as well then we will settle 50/50 and there's feck all you can do about it" - especially in Scotland where there are NO BARRISTERS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkwright Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 And how much will a Barristers opinion cost you? A solicitor is expensive enough one can assume a barrister will cost considerably more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vik54 Posted May 14, 2015 Author Share Posted May 14, 2015 And how much will a Barristers opinion cost you? A solicitor is expensive enough one can assume a barrister will cost considerably more. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 I'm not so sure I read it that way. Barristers usually get appointed by solicitors anyway, so you'd still go to your regular solicitor in the first place and find out who they'd recommend. In all honesty. it seems pretty fair in what they're saying that they'll pay the cost of this if the barrister thinks that there's a reasonable prospect (that's a key term, btw, as I'd want to know exactly what they define as reasonable. 51%? 60%? 75%?), whereas if the barrister agrees with the insurer then that's down to you to pay. Insurance companies don't go 50/50 for no reason, they usually do this simply because the case is so grey that it could go either way in court. They have a duty to try and mitigate their losses, which means sometimes going 50/50. The costs part doesn't sound anything to do with this: Bearing in mind they've already said they have to agree with you on the barrister in question, then by that token they've already agreed the costs will be reasonable as they would do their homework and make sure it's not going to cost them £10K in fees! Other than that specific example, the clause could equally apply to when you get your own garage to do the work and they try and uplift the bill, or anything else where the insurance company don't have direct control over the final bill. To me, this reads as a good thing: In previous years, if the insurance company wanted to go 50/50 but you really didn't, you ultimately had no reasonable way forward to make them change their minds. They've now given you a very simple way to challenge them now, at your own risk if you're wrong. That seems a very fair thing to do, tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytespc Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Bugger and Churchill used to be one of the best.....in 2003 my 1997 323 V6 above average miles stationary at lights , rear ended by a truck driver on the phone , made an absolute mess of the car, rear hatch with curved glass , petrol tank , bumper and lights etc etc , no quibbles no input from me just repaired it & you'd never know it had been in a shunt. Sad day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 That wouldn't be affected by this new bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.