Modern Claims Magazine - Issue 23

Featuring Telematics FOCUS

Linking the industry together

Issue 23 January 2017 ISSN 2051-6495

Gocompare.com Interview with Lee Griffin

“Companies need to tread a fine line between how we collect and use information alongside how we build customer trust to allow us more access to it”

Supported by

Sponsored by

A CENTURY OF PROFESSIONALISM

The highest standards in post-accident services under one umbrella.

NPS score of 79% CSI rating of 9/10 EDAM Group provides real-time CSI reporting, pro-actively asking customers for feedback at point of service.

Customer feedback allows EDAM Group to continuously improve and exceed the highest customer expectations.

We understand the importance of your customer’s journey – we are people made, service driven.

EDAM partners: MEDI-TRUST Medical reports and assessments

Get in touch to find out more about working with us today.

0330 134 0110 | hello@edamgroup.co.uk | www.edamgroup.co.uk

MODERN CLAIMS

Editorial Contributors Adrian Coupland Managing Director - Data and Distribution SSP

Lesley Graves Managing Director Citadel Law

Amanda Stevens Group Head of Legal Practice Hudgell Solicitors

Mark Hewitt Managing Director Rebmark Legal Solutions

Andrew Gibbons Managing Director Mason Owen Financial Services Ltd

Mark Ledger Principal Prosthetist Blatchford Clinic

Andrew Myhill UK Public Affairs Manager Zurich

Oliver Smith Marketing Manager slicedbread

David Simon Chairman Triton Global Limited

Paul Lynes Managing Director Back Me Up

David Williams Technical Director AXA Insurance

Sarah Roberts Marketing Executive Eclipse Legal Systems

Donna Scully Partner Carpenters

Scott Whyte Managing Director Watermans

Dr Hugh Koch Director Hugh Koch Associates

Stephen Ward Managing Director Clerksroom Direct & Clerksroom Mediators

Gary Gallen CEO rradar James Roberts Business Development Director Europcar

Zoe Holland Managing Director ZebraLC

WELCOME eam Modern Claims finished 2016 with a visit to Southport for a Future Proofing roundtable, and the conversation was quickly dominated by discussions about technology. Tech was also a recurring theme when I attended the Insurance Nexus Connected Claims Europe summit late last year. I speak about it later in this issue, so I’ll spare you the details here, but I will say that one of the biggest takeaways from the event was that insurers have learned to expect disruption from technology and want to be prepared for it.

T

Technology is one of those ethereal words that is often touted as a silver bullet cure, but is rarely backed up with any tangible solutions. That’s why it was great to hear specific examples from both speakers and delegates at the summit. Topics covered included the advent of the autonomous vehicle, blockchain technology, which will be talked about more and more in insurance circles, and telematics.

To many, telematics are already an established and accepted part of insurance, and their knowledge of it may not extend beyond the idea of a little black box that monitors driving. The reality, as discussed at the event by speakers including Charlotte Halkett, Insure The Box, who writes about the subject in this issue, is that the current and future applications of telematics are far more complex.

From fleet management, to the internet of things and property claims, and to wearable devices, the use of telematics is yet to reach its full potential, and the future role it will play in insurance and in the wider world means it’s important not to dismiss it as a technology that has peaked. That’s why I’m excited to present the first of our fold out focuses, the Telematics Special, in association with Octo Telematics, which you can find in the centre of this issue.

Jason Moseley Executive Director Retail Motor Industry Federation (RMIF)

Also for this edition, we spoke with Gocompare.com to discuss the rise of the aggregator. Rather than interviewing our cover star, we talked with the COO of Gocompare.com, Lee Griffin, who turned out to be far more knowledgeable and less loud than Gio Compario. Comparison sites are synonymous with insurance in the public eye, so it was interesting to learn about the process that led to Gocompare.com’s inception, and the impact aggregators have had on the industry.

Hopefully you will find the interview, and the rest of the magazine, interesting too, and as always if you have any comments or feedback, or if you’d be interested in writing for Modern Claims, please do get in touch via the below details.

Issue 23 January 2017 ISSN 2051-6495 Editor Brendan Gurrie

Editorial Assistant Liam Lambert

Project Manager Rachael Pearson

Events Sales Kate McKittrick

Brendan Gurrie, Editor, Modern Claims Magazine.

Modern Claims Magazine is published by Charlton Grant Ltd ©2017

All material is copyrighted both written and illustrated. Reproduction in part or whole is strictly forbidden without the written permission of the publisher. All images and information is collated from extensive research and along with advertisements is published in good faith. Although the author and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the information in this publication was correct at press time, the author and publisher do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.

January 2017

@ModernBrendan brendan@charltongrant.co.uk 01765 600909

Modern Claims 03

MODERN CLAIMS

CONTENTS NEWS

INTERVIEWS

07

EdiTorial Board

13

07 Nigel Teasdale talks News

The President of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) Nigel Teasdale considers the implications of the motor insurance law review in UK and Europe, following Vnuk.

13 Lee Griffin

Lee Griffin spoke to Modern Claims Magazine about the inception of Gocompare.com, the affect it has had on the sector, and the role of marketing in the rise of price comparison sites.

17 Ed Fletcher

Ahead of the opening of a new office in Manchester, Modern Claims spoke to Ed Fletcher about the effects of reform on the clinical negligence sector and the importance of maintaining company culture and values throughout a business.

31

21 The Cost of Uncertainty

Amanda Stevens, Hudgell Solicitors

21 The Importance of Accuracy

James Roberts, Europcar UK Group

22 The long-term health benefits of hydraulic ankle technology

Mark Ledger, Blatchford Clinic

23 Rethinking After Reforms

Andrew Myhill, Zurich

23 Boxing cleverly to reduce fraud: An expert witness view

Dr Hugh Koch, Hugh Koch Associates

25 Reducing Costs in a Competitive Market

David Williams, AXA Insurance

25 What’s ‘Appening

contributors

Oliver Smith, slicedbread

27 Realise the benefits of telematics apps in a hard market

Adrian Coupland, SSP

27 An Affront To Justice Scott Whyte, Watermans

29 Progress in Our Pockets

Paul Lynes, Back Me Up

29 The Well-Trodden Path

Mark Hewitt, Rebmark Legal Solutions

31 How to get cheaper Barristers’ fees

Stephen Ward, Clerksroom

31 Be Careful What You Wish For Donna Scully, Carpenters

04 Modern Claims

January 2017

MODERN CLAIMS Issue 23 January 2017 ISSN 2051-6495

EdiTorial Board

FEATURES

33

44

33 What effect would an Online Court have on the claims sector?

38 Spectra Roundtable

David Simon, Triton Global Limited.

33 Facing up to fraud

Neil Garvin, Garvin’s Solicitors

35 Business as usual in 2017? Not if you want to avoid failure

Lesley Graves, Citadel Law

35 An Appetite for Disruption

Sarah Roberts, Eclipse Legal Systems

37 High Impact, High Risk

Zoe Holland, ZebraLC

37 Defending against fraud

Jason Moseley, RMIF

As 2016 drew to a close, Modern Claims gathered a roundtable of experts from the claims sector to analyse how the market can survive and thrive in the year ahead, and the years to come.

Liam Lambert reports on the discussion.

42 The Future of ATE – 2017 and Beyond

Tony Dyas takes stock of After the Event insurance, predicting what will change in the industry this year and analysing how firms can be ready to embrace these changes.

43 The relationship of fixed fees to mediation

Tim Wallis, Trust Mediation, suggests that the connection between fixed fees and mediation reveals an important business message.

44 “No mediation please we’re litigators”

02 Interview with Jonathan Hewett

Jonathan Hewett speaks to Modern Claims magazine about the various applications of telematics in the insurance industry, and the role of data in combating fraud, distracted driving, and poor driving behaviours.

04 Interview with Shaun Quinton

With usage of telematics technology on the rise, Shaun Quinton explains how telematics can help to combat fraud, be a boon for business fleets, and explores the key differences between telematics and black box technology.

January 2017

05 Interview with Ben Howarth

50

46 Connected Claims Europe The consensus on the future of claims

On 28th-29th September 2016, claims professionals from across Europe gathered at the Grange Tower Bridge Hotel for the Insurance Nexus Connected Claims Europe summit.

Brendan Gurrie reports on how one session revealed that many of the challenges and opportunities facing the UK claims sector are also set to impact on the insurance industry throughout the continent.

48 Sector Soapbox

Ben Howarth examines the changing role of telematics since their introduction, and how they have helped and will continue to help insurers and consumers drive safely and fight fraud.

Charlotte Halkett looks at the challenges that had to be overcome in gaining acceptance for telematics, how they have disrupted and transformed insurance since, and how telematics will adapt and evolve in the future.

53 Case Study: Eclipse

Eclipse’s Proclaim Case Management solution implemented at Personal Injury expert, Brooklands Solicitors.

53 Case Study: Gocompare.com

Facilitates Early Fraud Detection

10 MINUTES WITH

06 Interview with David Williams

David Williams told Modern Claims how the insurance market is benefitting from telematics solutions, and how it can improve its use of them in order to maximise their potential.

Modern Claims’s panel of resident associations outlines the burning issues facing the claims sector.

50 Thinking outside the box Telematics comes of Age

Mark Field examines why commercial considerations hamper the more widespread use of mediation.

TELEMATICS FOCUS

FEATURES

54 10 minutes with…

Jason Tripp, MotorPlus

07 Case Study – Octo Telematics

Modern Claims 05

www.carpenters-law.co.uk | 0844 249 3844 | @CarpentersLawuk

Providing the best possible customer experience has been the cornerstone of our business for almost 60 years. Our partnership with Carpenters ensures that our customers are put at the centre of the process, and receive claims and legal services of the highest quality.

Steve Chelton Head of Claims and Insurer Fraud Protection, Swinton Group Limited

NEWS

Nigel Teasdale TALKS NEWS The President of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) Nigel Teasdale considers the implications of the motor insurance law review in UK and Europe, following Vnuk. hen a tractor and trailer, working in a Slovenian farmyard, backed into the ladder on which Damijan Vnuk was standing, causing him personal injury, he could hardly have anticipated the incident would result in the UK Government being forced to consider whether golf buggies used on private land will be required to have compulsory insurance. However, as a result of the decision in Mr Vnuk’s compensation claim in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2014, that is the current position.

W

Unexpectedly, his compensation claim having been unsuccessful in his own jurisdiction, in Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav (C-162/13) the ECJ found that the tractor involved in the accident should have been insured, even though it was being used on private land for agricultural purposes, as it was a vehicle being used for a purpose “consistent with its normal function”. This was a much wider interpretation of the obligation of compulsory motor insurance than the UK (and other Member States) had understood to be the case, resulting in UK domestic law no longer reflecting the requirements of the newly-interpreted Motor Directive.

Construction vehicles, golf buggies, Segways, ride-on lawnmowers, motor sports vehicles, mobility scooters, electric bikes, fork-lift trucks, motorised ride-on children’s toys, dodgem cars, and quad bikes could now all be required to have compulsory insurance, wherever they are being used. The impact of such a change would be very significant. For example, the motor sports sector is worth more than £10bn to the UK economy but the difficulty of obtaining insurance to cover sports vehicles could render the industry non-viable. At the other end of the vehicle spectrum, there are thought to be up to 350,000 mobility scooters in use in the UK, with a requirement for compulsory insurance likely to be financially onerous. Hardly surprising, then, that the Government has described the Vnuk judgment as “a complete game-changer as far as motor insurance is concerned.”

The UK Government is concerned at the challenges and potentially costly consequences arising as a result of Vnuk. On 21 December the Department for Transport published a consultation paper on the implications and ways in which its effects might be reduced. The European Commission has already recognised the consequences of the judgment and, according to the Government, has indicated it may review the Directive, although it has yet to reach a conclusion on the issue.

Construction vehicles, golf buggies, Segways, ride-on lawnmowers, motor sports vehicles, mobility scooters, electric bikes, fork-lift trucks, motorised ride-on children’s toys, dodgem cars, and quad bikes could now all be required to have compulsory insurance, wherever they are being used

The consultation paper considers the effect on UK insurance if the Vnuk decision becomes law as it stands (what the Government calls the Comprehensive Option); and the impact of a possible amendment to the Motor Directive proposed by the Commission last summer (the UK Government’s preferred approach to the problem).

It is clear from the language used that the Government feels legally obliged to consult, in order to abide by the rules as long as the UK remains within the EU, but is not in favour of the reforms and, if changes are implemented, these could be withdrawn post-Brexit.

January 2017

Modern Claims 07

NEWS

Extending the circumstances in which a claim can be brought either against an insurer or the MIB risks increased fraud The Comprehensive Option

Issues for the MIB

Under this approach, compulsory cover would extend much wider than now under the Road Traffic Act 1988. In addition, the requirement for insurance would be based on the use of the vehicle, not where it is being used, extending the requirement for insurance to use on private land.

The Government is considering using its powers of derogation to exclude certain types of vehicles from compulsory insurance, whether under the Comprehensive Option or the Amended Directive Option. It considers it may be appropriate to derogate low risk vehicles, a move which would have the least impact on the MIB resources.

Under the ‘Comprehensive Option’, the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ would remain as it now stands under the Motor Directive: “any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power, but not running on rails, and any trailer, whether or not coupled.” The law would require third party insurance to be in place when a vehicle is used “in a way that is consistent with the normal function of the vehicle.”

The Amended Directive Option

The Motor Directive allows Member States to derogate from the motor insurance requirements both for types of vehicle and certain vehicles with a special plate. If a Member State allows such vehicles to be used without insurance, compensation must still be available to an accident victim involving the vehicles. The vehicle user could then be pursued by the MIB to recover the compensation paid, encouraging the purchase of insurance by users of derogated vehicles.

Under the Commission’s proposal, third party cover would be required when a “motor vehicle” is “used in traffic”. This change to the Directive would still have the potential to include vehicles currently outside the compulsory insurance regime, but only where they are “used in traffic”. The Commission’s suggested definition of the phrase is “where the use of a vehicle is for the transport of persons or goods whether stationary or in motion, in areas where the public has access in accordance with national law.”

Broad characteristics which might be taken into account in deciding which vehicles to derogate might include the maximum speed of the vehicle; its weight; whether a licence is needed to drive it; the frequency and cost of accidents; the cost of insurance at present; and how difficult it would be to enforce insurance requirements. Obviously the more vehicles that are subject to derogation, the greater the burden on the MIB, and ultimately on policyholders using vehicles not subject to derogation.

The Government assumes that definition would broadly equate to the UK insurance requirement for cover “on a road or other public place”. The consultation acknowledges there may be circumstances where the concept of public access is not straightforward, for example, land which the public actually uses where there is no physical barrier and no prohibition sign, but where use is not expressly permitted by the landowner. However, unlike under the Comprehensive Option, the compulsory insurance requirements would not apply to purely private land.

Should the type of vehicles requiring insurance be extended, the Government is considering how this would be enforced. Most of the vehicles coming within scope under either of the options do not have licensing and registration requirements. The consultation recognises it would be very expensive and burdensome to maintain a central record of the types of vehicles which would be newly in scope. A lighter approach would be to rely on enforcement agencies making random checks on insurance or after an accident.

The consultation raises the possibility that the phrase “in accordance with national law” may have different consequences in Scotland, where the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 establishes rights to be on, and to cross, certain types of land, which may broaden the definition of land to which the public has access.

It is anticipated that the Amended Directive approach would put motor racing outside the compulsory insurance regime, as racing usually takes place on private land with no public access to the areas where racing occurs, but this is still subject to confirmation from the Commission. The extension of the definitions of vehicles, however, does raise the prospect of a range of motorised equipment requiring insurance if used in public areas, for example, golf buggies used on the golf course if it is subject to public rights of way, or quadbikes used on a farm track used in practice by the public without express consent.

Obviously the more vehicles that are subject to derogation, the greater the burden on the MIB, and ultimately on policyholders using vehicles not subject to derogation

Traceability is an important issue: most newly in scope vehicles do not have a registration plate. The Government is considering whether some form of number plate scheme for these vehicles should be introduced.

Potential for fraudulent claims

Extending the circumstances in which a claim can be brought either against an insurer or the MIB risks increased fraud. More accidents will occur away from CCTV surveillance, involving vehicles without traceable markings. For example, an owner might be tempted to insure only one of his vehicles and claim it was the vehicle involved in any accident.

The most obvious way to reduce fraud would be to require any off-road accidents involving vehicles under compulsory insurance requirements to be reported to the police, but it could become onerous if every time a mobility scooter bumps into a pedestrian in a shopping mall it becomes a police incident. Overlapping with the issues considered in the recent MOJ consultation on soft tissue injury claims, the DfT asks whether, if a personal injury claim is brought, the victim should prove he or she has been assessed by a doctor.

Until the UK exits the EU it remains bound by all EU rights and obligations. Doing nothing is not an option. Whilst much of the Government’s energy is focussed currently on a future outside the EU, the DfT is finding that life within Europe presents considerable challenges. Indeed, The Times reported that Ministers were believed to have been outraged by the requirement to implement the rule change in the UK. Nigel Teasdale is President of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) and Partner at DWF LLP.

08 Modern Claims

January 2017

Supporting specialist personal injury and clinical negligence law firms Paying disbursements as incurred on our ATE Insurance solution

Our paid as incurred disbursement model • Disbursements paid as incurred • Cumulative financial drawdown • Value increases as cases progress • Free from interest and fees • Improve case settlement times • Releases cash from balance sheet • Ability to run more cases • No separate consumer credit agreement to be explained to clients

Call 0370 243 4340 or visit allianzlegalprotection.co.uk

@allianzuklegal Allianz Legal Protection is a trading name of Allianz Insurance plc

Crystal Clear.

For over 40 years our crystal clear thinking has won us a reputation as the law firm insurers can trust to handle their claims.

Now it’s won us an award.

We are Lyons Davidson, a full-service legal practice with offices nationwide and Modern Claims Magazine’s Law Firm of the Year.

Trusted by the industry. Voted for by experts.

Clarity is our strength.

lyonsdavidson.co.uk

INTERVIEW

Lee Griffin Lee Griffin spoke to Modern Claims Magazine about the inception of Gocompare.com, the affect it has had on the sector, and the role of marketing in the rise of price comparison sites.

Q A

Why was Gocompare.com a necessary business, and what steps led to its launch?

The decision to launch Gocompare.com back in 2006 came from a frustration around how comparison sites were operating and what their priorities were at the time.

Back then, price was the only thing that comparison sites were really concerned about. This meant that customers would find cheap policies, but without doing separate research and poring over policy documents, they wouldn’t have an indication of the cover levels provided by the policy and ultimately whether it was right for their needs.

We thought comparison sites could serve customers better than just showing them prices and as a result, Gocompare.com was born out of the principle of putting the needs of our customers first. We became the first comparison site to focus on the features of policies, not just price, in order to help our customers make more informed purchasing decisions.

This customer centric approach was validated when we became the first (and we are still the only) comparison website to be invited to join the British Insurance Brokers’ Association (BIBA).

As other comparison sites caught on to our way of thinking and started to adopt a similar approach, we have continued to work hard to improve our offering to our customers to ensure we’re still giving them all the tools they need to find the right deal for them.

In recent years, we improved this further by partnering with independent financial researcher Defaqto to integrate additional policy information into a number of our insurance comparison services, allowing people to compare up to an extra 30 features of cover. We have also implemented reviews onto some of our products, again to arm our customers with all the knowledge they need.

Was there initial resistance to Gocompare.com, and how was this overcome?

Comparison websites have become such a big part how people interact with financial products that it’s hard to remember a time before they were as well established as they are now.

Getting the initial investment for Gocompare.com wasn’t horrendously difficult, as we had all developed a good track record in the industry. I think we also talked to the right people who believed in what we were trying to achieve, including Sir Peter Wood, who was a pivotal early investor in the business and now leads Gocompare.com’s board of directors.

Q A

January 2017

As a standalone business we are in charge of our own destiny and are able to remain a totally independent comparison site for our customers

Modern Claims 13

INTERVIEW

Companies need to tread a fine line between how we collect and use information alongside how we build customer trust to allow us more access to it A big challenge for us in getting Gocompare.com off the ground was building technology that really hadn’t existed in this form at that point. Every day we were having to come up with solutions for new problems in order to keep us on track with our launch plans, against very stiff competition at the time.

Gocompare.com now has a team of around 180, a large part of which is our tech department, but back when we launched there were fewer than 10 of us handling everything from getting insurance partners on board to assembling our own desks in the office.

While it’s amazing to see how far the business has come along, I’d be lying if I said there weren’t a few grey hairs along the way.

How has the role of the insurance aggregator changed since the launch of Gocompare.com?

The role of comparison sites has changed dramatically since Gocompare.com launched. Back in 2006, aggregators in this form were a relatively new concept which, for lack of a better term, impressed customers by making their financial purchases easier than they had ever been in the past.

However, 10 years is a long time and what was once a revolutionary new concept has now become the new standard. As a result, our customers constantly expect us to push forward and make comparison easier, faster and better than ever before, which puts the onus on us to drive innovation in the sector.

To put this into perspective, there is an entire generation of people who have only ever purchased their insurance through a comparison site. In just a few years’ time, new drivers will have lived in a world where comparison sites have always existed, which means it’s up to aggregators to adapt to a new generation of consumers’ needs.

Q A

Our customers constantly expect us to push forward and making comparison easier, faster and better than ever before, which puts the onus on us to drive innovation in the sector

While this is a challenge, it’s one we feel that we have definitely risen to. For instance, in 2015 we launched the UK’s only midata-powered current account comparison service, alongside the Treasury. This allows customers to use their midata files from their online banking to carry out more meaningful current account comparisons. It effectively takes the guesswork out of finding the right current account, as our service uses the customer’s actual usage to work out, in pounds and pence, the best account for them.

For us, the midata current account comparison service is an example of the innovation we hope to drive across all our products in the future and represents the future of data-driven comparison, by better using customer data in a secure manner to allow them to take back control of their finances.

Q A

What impact has the rise of aggregator sites had on insurance premiums?

There are a myriad of factors, from bad weather to Brexit, that go into how insurance premiums are calculated, which makes it hard to pinpoint the exact impact comparison sites have had on prices.

That said, I think it’s safe to say that aggregators have definitely increased competition in the insurance sector, which naturally has an effect on premiums. Before comparison sites, people would need to call up each individual insurer and go through a quote process for all of them in order to get a small smattering of options. Due to the time intensive nature of this, customers would typically only get quotes from two or three providers before settling on one.

Nowadays, thanks to comparison sites, customers are able to obtain a range of quotes from a huge variety of providers in just a few minutes. As such, we feel this has encouraged providers to price more competitively to attract customers.

From your data and experience, do insurance customers choose their policy based primarily on price, and what other factors have the largest influence on their choice?

For some customers this is definitely true. For instance, young drivers who face the highest premiums tend to be most concerned with getting affordable premiums. However, what motivates the majority of our customers is good cover at a competitive price.

Q

A

We find that most people tend to gravitate towards polices that won’t break the bank, but also have the right level cover for their needs. The product where this is most prevalent is travel insurance, where customers often look for a compromise between cost and comprehensive cover, aided by the Defaqto star ratings which we display.

What are the current and potential applications for the large amounts of data Gocompare.com obtains from its customers?

Data optimisation is definitely the future of not just aggregators, but most businesses and markets. The more data companies have access to, the more we can tailor our services to our customers’ needs and make comparison better.

The biggest obstacle to all of this is trust. Understandably, people are becoming increasingly protective of their data and concerned about how it is used. As such, companies need to tread a fine line between how we collect and use information alongside how we build customer trust to allow us more access to it.

Q A

14 Modern Claims

January 2017

INTERVIEW

A big challenge for us in getting Gocompare.com off the ground was building technology that really hadn’t existed in this form at that point We’ve never sold our customer’s information and for our most data-heavy service, the midata current account comparison service, we do not store any of the midata information provided by the customer. This is a decision we have made not only to build trust with our customers, but also because we believe it is the right thing to do. Our hope is that through our secure and appropriate use of customer data, people will become increasingly comfortable sharing more with us, which in turn we can use to improve our services.

It’s not just customers though; insurers and other providers (such as energy companies) could do a better job of sharing information to allow customers to switch providers more easily.

In an ideal world, a one-click comparison service which is fast, easy and accurate would be the goal. While we may be some time away from this, it’s important for us to begin laying the groundwork today.

What measures does Gocompare.com take to prevent fraud at the initial stages of purchasing a policy?

Gocompare.com provides a point-of-quote fraud detection and prevention technology in partnership with iovation. Our system identifies fraudulent quotes based on a number of factors in an anti-fraud system that requires no additional implementation for our insurance partners.

Factors used to block fraudulent quotes include monitoring whether a device has been used to conduct a fraudulent transaction in the past, is using an Internet Service Provider with a high percentage of fraudulent transactions originating from it, or has requested an abnormally high number of quotes in a short time period.

With the huge amount of traffic we receive, creating and implementing such an extensive fraud prevention system that doesn’t put strain on our panel of insurers’ tech infrastructure can be tricky.

However, we’re happy with our industry-leading anti-fraud measures, which won the ‘Combatting Fraud Broking Initiative of the Year’ award at Post Magazine’s Insurance Fraud Awards 2015 and made Gocompare.com the first UK aggregator to implement a solution that can detect and prevent known fraud at the point-of-quote

Can/should companies and firms from other areas of the insurance industry utilise similar marketing techniques to those used by Gocompare.com?

Gocompare.com’s marketing function is something that is very important to us. One way to look at Gocompare.com itself would be as a marketing channel that provides an extremely cost effective route to market for insurers, lenders, energy companies and more, who only pay when they’ve actually received a customer. As such, it makes sense to ensure our own marketing efforts are industry-leading.

While we’re probably best known for our iconic tenor, Gio Compario, our marketing team works across a huge range of platforms including display ads, PPC and ECRM as well as PR and social media. We have excellent people in our marketing department who work hard to raise awareness of our brand, products and key messages, delivering multi-platform campaigns with a huge reach.

As to whether other companies should use the same techniques as Gocompare.com, well, as one of the UK’s biggest brands we like to

Q A

think we’ve been successful in that area. However, I’m not sure the world would be ready for hundreds of opera singers like our own Gio Compario.

What led to the decision to demerge Gocompare.com from esure, and what effects will the move have on the insurance industry and its perceptions of aggregators?

As a business, we learnt a great deal while being part of the esure Group, which has definitely been beneficial in our journey as a listed company in our own right. The decision to demerge was a carefully thought-out process which ultimately represented the vision we have for the future of the company, both as a business and for our customers and shareholders.

As a standalone business we are in charge of our own destiny and are able to remain a totally independent comparison site for our customers. It’s likely that the future of comparison will involve how aggregators are able to better utilise data to improve our services and as an independent aggregator with a carefully formed, dedicated team, we are in the best possible position to be at the forefront of this.

Q

A

Lee Griffin is COO of Gocompare.com

Our hope is that through our secure and appropriate use of customer data, people will become increasingly comfortable sharing more with us, which in turn we can use to improve our services

Q

A

January 2017

Modern Claims 15

DRIVING INNOVATION IN TELEMATICS The introduction of smartphone apps, such as SSP’s SoteriaDrive, has taken telematics mainstream.

With the motor market continuing to harden, telematics is now proving to be a very attractive proposition. SSP’s evolving telematics solutions help to give consumers a wider choice for their motor cover, making it even more relevant to the audience.

To discover more about the competitive advantage SSP’s telematics solutions can give your business visit www.ssp-worldwide.com/soteriadrive or call us on 0800 590 705

INTERVIEW

Ed Fletcher Ahead of the opening of a new office in Manchester, Modern Claims spoke to Ed Fletcher about the effects of reform on the clinical negligence sector and the importance of maintaining company culture and values throughout a business.

Q A

What are the challenges facing the clinical negligence and serious injury sector heading into 2017?

The major challenge, certainly in terms of clinical negligence, is the fixed costs regime consultation that is scheduled to take place in earnest from December for 12 weeks. This has been delayed on a number of occasions now, but it seems to me that it will all be tied in to the wider reforms that are being discussed around whiplash and increasing the small claims limit. I certainly feel that dealing with the consultation appropriately and adapting to whatever the landscape looks like post-implementation is the big issue.

Q A

What impact might the proposed measures in the MOJ consultation have on clinical negligence and serious injury?

The actual whiplash consultation is going to be minimal in terms of impact. Serious injury and clinical negligence cases won’t be affected. The increase in the small claims limit to £5000, however, would have a significant impact on the way in which we provide legal services to people with injuries valued at less than £5000.

If you aren’t able to gather the legal fees for cases that are valued at less than £5000, you’re going to find it very difficult to get great lawyers to do a fantastic job for those people. Therefore access to justice is going to be affected, without question.

Q A

Given all of these changes and challenges, what steps can be taken to ensure continued growth?

I think that people are going to have to change their view on how to approach things if growth is the aim of a particular organisation. If it’s growth in terms of file numbers you’re talking about, you’re going to have to process more leads for the same number of cases that are going to be fee-bearing. That will require more marketing and advertising spend. If you’re talking about growth in terms of profit and turnover, that might well be achievable without increasing the number of cases you have, but you might have to increase the quality of them, and/or process them more quickly. I certainly feel that there will be scope and opportunity for growth in whatever landscape is left before us after these numerous consultations take place.

It’s difficult to say too much when we don’t know what’s going to be in the consultations, but what always occurs after aggressive enforced change is growth and opportunity.

That’s one thing that’s been central to all of our growth: being true to our values and the culture we have around here

Q

You’re currently in the process of relocating. What factors should companies and firms consider when looking to establish a new office?

A

I think location is important. Feel is important as well. When you spend so much time investing in culture like we have here at Fletchers, the feel of the building, and its ability to be ‘Fletcherised’, is really important. That’s one thing that’s been central to all of our growth: being true to our values and the culture we have around here. We do things a certain way around here, and we’ll make sure to replicate that when we move to Manchester. The physical building itself has a big part to play in that.

January 2017

Modern Claims 17

INTERVIEW

If you aren’t able to gather the legal fees for cases that are valued at less than £5000, you’re going to find it very difficult to get great lawyers to do a fantastic job for those people, therefore access to justice is going to be affected, without question We’re hoping to be fully operational by February next year. Plans are going very well. We’re fully committed to a long-term future in Manchester for our medical negligence lawyers, but the throbbing heartbeat of Fletchers will always reside in Southport. It’s a diamond of the Merseyside Riviera!

We’re very excited about Manchester though, and within three years we hope to have grown into a base for up to fifty brilliant medical negligence lawyers, doing our best for people who have been injured through medical accidents or blunders.

Q

Could you tell me a more about your company culture, and how you’ve insured that said culture is carried over to your new office?

A

The essence of Fletchers is us ‘being in this together’, and not just with the injured person as we take them through the traumatic journey of the claims process. We’re also together because we look after one another within Fletchers, we have each other’s backs, and we understand each other. We stay true to our values of trust, performance, development and innovation. We call Fletchers a ‘Corporate Plus’ environment, and that Plus stands for team, family and togetherness, which is very important for us.

It’s one of the reasons that we’re in the Sunday Times Best Companies To Work For and it’s one of the reasons we have the Investors In People Gold Award; they’re badges to illustrate that we’re going about things in the right way, to do the best that we can for injured people. That’s the Fletchers way.

Q A

Where should the emphasis on training new staff in the new office lie?

Everyone will be exposed to the headquarters culture; we recruit on our values as well, not just on technical competence. This ensures that we’ve got better prospects of recruiting ‘Fletcherians’ right from the start. It starts with the interview, then goes through the induction process, where everyone is made very familiar with the driving organisational principles of Fletchers, our values, ethics and why we’re doing what we’re doing. That’s reinforced every day, but also monthly, with our ‘LOVE’ (Live Our Values Everyday), where a person within the organisation who best illustrates our core values gets a £50 voucher. We even have a Wall of LOVE!

Q A

What challenges will face a company that’s operating in a new area?

Not wanting to drone on about it, but the major area we need to keep an eye on is ensuring that the culture is good. We’ve got a national client base, so we’re not going to be rabidly going after the local market – it’s going to be important for us to become established within the local clinical negligence and legal sector community in Manchester. We want to embrace it, and we want to be embraced by them.

It’s really important for law firms in general to work collaboratively, because we all have numerous shared goals. I think it’s going to be important for us.

Q

What forms of due diligence must be undertaken and carried out when establishing this new office?

18 Modern Claims

Ed Fletcher Ed Fletcher first joined Fletchers Solicitors, the UK’s leading medical negligence and serious injury law firm, in September 1996 as a personal injury trainee solicitor.

Just three years later, Ed severed his spinal cord in a motorbike accident and is now a paraplegic wheelchair user. Despite his injuries, he did not let this hinder his career ambitions, and he became partner in 2005 and director in 2007. He was later appointed as CEO in 2012 and has overseen an unprecedented period of growth within the firm, taking the number of employees from 90 people to the 350 people it employs today. He has also been pivotal in establishing Fletchers Solicitors as one of the largest medical negligence and serious injury practices in the UK.

Ed’s personal mantra puts the needs of the injured party at the heart of everything he does. Since becoming CEO, Ed has broken down the conventions of the standard law firm. Whilst the organisation has expanded, employee engagement and communication has remained at the heart of Ed’s vision. The firm boasts a dedicated recruitment strategy, which aims to attract and retain the very best talent that the industry has to offer, with the aim of becoming a Top 100 law firm by 2018.

I certainly feel that there will be scope and opportunity for growth in whatever landscape is left before us after these numerous consultations take place

A

There’s some boring and prosaic stuff in terms of governance on the building, and in terms of the lease, but also in terms of recruiting. New people will move into Fletchers, because we’ve always been one for organic growth; that’s the way we can control and grow our culture. In terms of due diligence, doing due diligence in every single person we bring into that new office is absolutely paramount, over and above all of the boring operations stuff to do with the building.

Q A

What are the next steps for Fletchers Solicitors?

We’ve got a very clearly stated objective of getting into the Lawyer Top 100 UK Law Firms by 2018, which we’re very much on with. Our strategy will continue to put people at the heart of everything we do; when I say people, I mean ‘Fletcherians’, as well as our clients. That’s our stated aim, and we’re well on track with that.

We’re very excited to have this opportunity to grow sustainably.

We’re very proud of the fact that we employ 350 fantastic people.

We hope that we’ll be able to go from strength to strength in the years to come, with the tactic of becoming number one in whatever areas we move into.

January 2017

specialist personal injury and clinical negligence mediation

ISSUE 27 December 2016 ISSN 2050-5744

THE BUSINESS

OF LAW

D RICHARD SUSSKIN ous imagine a prosper in the 2020s, I cannot ” “When we are firmly s not embracing some form of AI. legal busines Sponsored by Supported by

HAVE YOU SEEN OUR SISTER PUBLICATION? 0207 353 3237 Registrar@TrustMediation.org.uk www.TrustMediation.org.uk

To arrange your free subscription please email liam@charltongrant.co.uk

www.modernlawmagazine.com Have you seen Qtr Page Ads NEW LOOK.indd 1

08/02/2017 12:33

EDITORIAL BOARD

The Cost of Uncertainty

The Importance of Accuracy

What should be the focus of insurers/solicitors following the announcement of the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation?

How can insurers gain more confidence when using basic hire rate evidence?

n interesting question; normally I would not be asked about a single focus for insurers and solicitors! But scratch beneath the surface and it’s not hard to find some fundamental issues in common.

urrently a big bugbear when processing credit hire claims is how both sides of the claim calculate the basic hire rate (BHR) for a replacement vehicle following an accident.

At the heart of the friction is the lack of clarity, transparency and accuracy that both parties perceive in the rates presented. Is the rate quoted that of the day the quote is requested, or actually that of the day of the accident? Is the rate for a vehicle that is commensurate with the policyholder’s normal vehicle? Was the vehicle available on the day it was required? And this friction has the potential to impact on the overall customer experience, to the detriment of longer term customer retention as well as unnecessary litigation.

A

We all share one community and operate consumer-facing businesses. So both sides have a responsibility to produce responses based on sound research capable of detailed public scrutiny. We would be letting our communities down, including past, present and future injured people and the MPs that represent them, without this. Errors of the Brexit campaign must be avoided. Previously, stakeholders have been loath to share data, or they provided incomplete data sets. We should all be careful of what we wish for, if it is based simply on wishful thinking and not hard evidence.

People must stand up and be counted, not rely on the herd to go generally in the right direction. Not all insurers want these reforms.

I haven’t met a single claimant solicitor who does and I cannot identify any advantage to defendant lawyers. All of us must address the question of who precisely will benefit from the proposed initiative, and at what overall cost to the society we share.

Unintended consequences must be considered, consequences that flow well beyond next year’s balance sheet. Savings to parts of the insurance industry (not all participate in the affected book of work) are, it is said, to be passed on to motorists; it is beyond doubt that has not happened in the past in the manner promised.

Most of us are motorists. Don’t we have a right to understand and influence the cost of what we are required to purchase? And what if vast job losses (across both sectors) followed reform, creating additional funding needs at DWP, which, coupled with loss of VAT on fees, meant increased taxes, whether personal or corporate?

How desirable is that?

We all benefit from a legal system said to be one of the best in the world. Complaints of costs and delays in lower value damages claims have been largely addressed by portal and fixed costs.

Permitting interference with our much admired tort system to further drive down cost for some insurers must concern us as all; once a political precedent has been set, none of us can control where further political whims may take us. Uncertainty usually doesn’t reduce cost, it raises it.

C

Both sides will have value in obtaining an accurate BHR report. For the insurer it is fundamental in assessing cost. For the credit hire operator (CHO) it can be used to identify the position at which an insurer is likely to start its negotiation. But, more importantly, if both insurer and CHO reach agreement that a non-fault hire claim should be settled on the basic hire rate, it’s vital that the evidence being used to prove the rate mirrors what the individual would have been quoted by a rental company on the date of accident, taking into consideration their circumstances (age, hire duration, vehicle group, location, etc).

However, there are a number of other factors that will also have an influence on the BHR. For example, availability directly influences the rate of car hire on any given day. A busy Summer weekend will see rates much higher than a mid-week day in early Autumn.

And BHR reports also often base rates on the date a search was requested and not the actual date of the accident or when the replacement vehicle was required, primarily because most car hire systems make it difficult to go back in time to perform a retroactive check out.

At Europcar we are working closely with both insurers and credit hire operators to provide reliable and fair rate evidence for both sides. We can replicate any past scenario, providing accurate rate evidence, completely contemporaneous and representing availability. And this is enabling a consistent approach that eliminates the friction that not only adds cost to the claims process, but ensures a positive claims experience for the customer.

James Roberts, Business Development Director, Europcar.

Amanda Stevens, Group Head of Legal Practice, Hudgell Solicitors.

January 2017

Modern Claims 21

EDITORIAL BOARD

The long-term health benefits of hydraulic ankle technology ower limb amputees can continue to face health issues long after amputation. 61% of lower limb amputees experience moderate to severe back pain within two years of their amputation, and are two to three times more likely to develop osteoarthritis in their knee or hip compared to the general population1. It is the consideration and management of these issues that is crucial to the sustained health of every patient.

L

Patients without the benefit of hydraulic ankle technology often require orthotic input for their non-impaired limb due to the increased strain and pressure placed on that limb when the patient has unnatural posture and overcompensates for a lack of strength and stability in their prosthetic limb. This increases the level of clinical input required and, therefore, the cost of ongoing treatment.

The long-term musculoskeletal health of each amputee depends on the replication of the dynamic and adaptive qualities of natural limb movement. The human ankle foot complex contains 28 bones and 33 joints that work in sequence to provide balance, stability and a seamless walking experience. Hydraulic ankles respond to the design specifications that natural movement dictates, fine-tuning joint position to align the body for optimum posture and comfort.

Hydraulic ankle technology allows more equal weight bearing between both feet. By continuously adjusting to absorb and release energy, hydraulic ankles remain perfectly aligned with the user to provide greater control and stability, which in turn increases confidence when walking and when negotiating variable terrain. This technology helps reduce pain and discomfort, physical and cognitive demand and the chance of trips and falls, leading to greater long-term health, wellbeing and independence.

The increased comfort from the use of hydraulic ankle technology has led to a 60% reduction in socket stress2. This, combined with a reduced need for orthotic input for the non-impaired limb, may reduce the level of future clinical input required by the patient and, therefore, reduce the cost of ongoing treatment.

A range of hydraulic ankles are available from the Blatchford Clinic.

To find out more, please visit blatchford.co.uk.

References: 1 Kulkarni J, Gaine WJ, Buckley JG, Rankine JJ, Adams J. Chronic low back pain in traumatic lower limb amputees. Clinical rehabilitation. 2005;19(1):81-6 S. Portnoy, A. Kristal, A. Gefen, I. Siev-Ner. Outdoor dynamic subject-specific evaluation of internal stresses in the residual limb: Hydraulic energy-stored prosthetic foot compared to conventional energy-stored prosthetic feet. Gait and Posture 2012; 35(1), 121-5

2

Mark Ledger, Principal Prosthetist, Blatchford Clinic.

22 Claims Modern Claims M00041 Modern PC Advert Dec 2015 AW.indd 1

18/12/2015 11:26

January 2017

EDITORIAL BOARD

Rethinking After Reforms t is welcome news indeed that the Ministry of Justice will proceed with the long awaited consultation on proposals which aim to reduce the number of whiplash claims, and that the Government will implement these proposals through legislation in the Justice Bill next year. As far back as 2011, it was recognised that there was a dysfunctional motor insurance market, and the Government’s statement of intent marks a significant step in tackling the compensation culture that, despite previous reform, still exists in the UK.

I

Many had thought the cause was lost when the Government delayed this consultation earlier this year. However, it is testament to the hard work of insurers, the ABI and parts of the legal fraternity that we have managed to convince the Government of the importance of advancing these reforms.

Whilst there will no doubt be differences of opinion between insurers and solicitors, it is necessary that all parties do their best to deescalate the tensions these reforms have created, and work collaboratively to ensure that where a genuine accident and injury has occurred, effective and appropriate redress is available.

As we move forward in responding to the consultation we should remember that this is unfinished business. While the LASPO reforms made some important steps forward, since the publication of the review Lord Justice Jackson conducted on behalf of the Government, litigation costs for many commonplace personal injury claims have continued to gather pace in an uncontrolled and unabated manner. This has inevitably impacted on premiums.

We believe there needs to be a wider debate on what sort of compensation system our society is willing to pay for. The consultation on Whiplash is a start, but we also support Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals to implement a fixed costs regime for civil litigation that would control costs and promote access to justice. In particular, we believe that there is a genuine case to extend these proposals beyond just clinical negligence into EL and PL too. To not do so would mean a continued impact on the costs of goods and services as particularly in public liability claims, these costs are ultimately met by the council tax payer.

The overarching goal at the end of this process should be a set of reforms across the civil justice space to provide a final settled base from which insurers and solicitors can move forward with certainty, rather than prolong the piecemeal approach that has prevailed in recent years.

Andrew Myhill, UK Public Affairs Manager, Zurich.

January 2017

Boxing cleverly to reduce fraud: An expert witness view he recent Modern Claims’ fraud supplement highlighted the industry’s fight against fraud and the need to understand the psychology of fraudsters and deception detection.

Collaborative working on this review is gaining ground via several bodies’ activities (e.g. Insurance Fraud Bureau, Fraud Enforcement department). Nearer the coalface, law firms are increasingly screening against fraud and developing a ‘smarter approach to fraud’ at the outset of and throughout claims.

T

Building on the above and pushing the boundaries of deception detection, expert witnesses have their own role to play when faced with a claimant’s narrative of their ‘personal injuries’ and ‘how they developed’.

I recently published work on ‘assessing malingering and deception in forensic, judicial and clinical contexts’ (Koch et al, 2016) describing how to detect six different response styles of dissimulation (malingering, defensiveness, irrelevant or random reporting, factually incorrect reporting and hybrid reporting).

Advanced expert interviewing in any field requires the ability to identify non-verbal deceptive behaviour e.g. speech hesitation under stress or uncertainty. Verbal behaviour then can illustrate inconsistency in narratives given, followed by one of the most popular techniques to date for assessing deception, The Statement Validity Assessment, a structured interview with content and validity-checking questions.

Psychometric and neuropsychological tests are useful for assessing sub-optimal effort and motivation and, on occasion, clear fabrication. A more recent psychometric innovation has been the assessment of interrogative suggestibility pointing to oversuggestibility and intolerance of uncertainty, resulting in the giving of misleading and inaccurate information.

Expert witnesses should adopt a ‘medico-legal mind’, a challenging attitude, with probing questioning using techniques to assess non-verbal, verbal and written statement unreliability and integrate these findings to give an opinion on dissimulation. It is possible to develop a structured approach to assessing reliability at the medico-legal assessment stage, which is applicable to all types of reporting contexts (medical/physical; psychological/ psychiatric; non-medical). The final opinion is for the court to decide, but they require expert assistance and concise, practical training in communication and advanced interviewing techniques, which are now available to lawyers and insurers and experts both in the UK, Europe and North America.

Dr Hugh Koch, Clinical Psychologist and Director, Hugh Koch Associates and visiting Professor to School of Law, University of Stockholm.

Modern Claims 23

FROM

TO

Lawyers

Humans

Problem-led

Solution-led

Complexity

Clarity

Discursive

Proactive

Exclusive

Accessible

Stuffy

Fun

Mercenary

Generous

Supporting

Leading Welcome to rradar.

0800 955 6111

rradar.com

EDITORIAL BOARD

Reducing Costs in a Competitive Market Will the measures proposed in the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation ultimately achieve lower insurance premiums for customers? ndoubtedly the measures proposed will reduce the cost of claims, and the incredibly competitive nature of the UK Motor Insurance market will ensure that these savings are passed on to customers. I know many people on the claimant side of these discussions choose not to believe this, but perhaps a few illustrations will convince even those with a vested interest in representing this as simply a windfall to insurers.

U

Motor insurance pricing is the focus of large numbers of actuaries poring over numbers, deciding what prices will be and then studying the impact on conversion, retention etc. We have established that, very roughly speaking, if we increase rates by 0.5%, if all else remains the same, this will see a decline in the conversion rate we experience of around 7%. Similarly if we reduce rates by 0.5% then conversion goes up by 7%. Profitability wise, motor insurance is marginal at best. Aside from one large outlying company that seems to make money most years, the rest of us think that a 2% return marks a good year. This is again driven by that competitive market - cost comparison websites creating the perfect storm in terms of pricing and conversion.

When claims savings come through, if we don’t reflect that in our pricing, someone else will, and we will lose market share, it is as simple as that. In addition, there will be tremendous focus on the expected reductions, which if anything will accelerate the changes.

With the introduction of LASPO we saw motor premiums drop dramatically in anticipation of the savings coming through, from the highpoint just before we saw a total of £1.1bn reduced off of premiums. This is tracked independently and is not in dispute, again, other than from some segments of the claimant lobby who frankly will say anything to try and discredit insurers.

Sadly, as people found ways around the referral fee bans, claims costs started to rise again, and that competitive market then ensured that premiums followed suit, getting to the position where we are today, almost back to where we were pre-LASPO. The measures will reduce premiums, insurers including AXA and Aviva have already promised to pass on 100% of the savings, so unless some clever individual somewhere finds yet another way to circumvent the intentions of whiplash reform, we can all look forward to lower premiums going forward.

David Williams, Technical Director, AXA Insurance.

What’s ‘Appening How can insurance-based apps disrupt and benefit the industry? obile applications are here to stay. Love them or hate them, it doesn’t really matter, the majority of your customers are using them. From an obsession with taking photographs of themselves to showing the world how many miles they ran at 6:45am this morning, apps are part of your customers’ everyday lives.

M

Mobile apps provide insurance companies with opportunities to enhance their service and ingrain them into their customers’ lives.

In order to do this, the apps should focus on three areas: 1. Business – Ability to purchase and renew policies.

2. Visibility – Providing customers with real-time updates about their claim.

3. Business Intelligence – Understanding customer lifestyles.

The first two points are the most obvious functionalities for insurance apps, and with the right claims management software should be relatively straightforward to implement. By improving claim visibility and conducting business through the app; insurance firms will reduce operational costs and increase customer retention.

However, the major opportunity for insurance firms lies in the ability to use mobile apps to gather information about their customers and personalise policies based on their lifestyles. In the last edition of Modern Claims Magazine, I wrote about ‘the Internet of Things’ and how smart watches, fridges, cars and all sorts of other connect devices are generating valuable data about an individual’s lifestyle. This data is a goldmine for insurance firms and is available right now.

If you’re developing your own insurance app and seeking to take advantage of the information your customers are generating every day, think about it from their perspective. For example, if they’re using My Fitness Pal to monitor health, do you replicate the app for your own insurance purposes? No, of course not, is anybody going to change their habits for your company or run two apps for the same purpose? Only a small minority, and that would be a waste of your investment.

The key to a successful insurance app is its ability to use the data already being generated. With a multitude of smart devices producing customer data today; your app needs to tap into this information rather than recreate it. An integrated approach needs to be at the forefront of your app development plans. The barriers are down, the majority of consumer apps provide access to their API to extend the usage and adoption of their applications. The data is there and the ability to harness it is available; so insurance firms need to start grasping this opportunity by gaining their customers’ trust and selling the benefits of a lifestyle-integrated insurance policy.

Knowledge is power and insurance companies have the opportunity to use powerful consumer data to ingrain their services into the lives of their clients. Bespoke customer service on a giant scale, increased retention and improved profits; the mobile app working in conjunction with an agile claims management platform is the vehicle to drive future success.

Oliver Smith, Marketing Manager, slicedbread.

January 2017

Modern Claims 25

Turn your Personal Injury files into cash today Our experience is unrivalled, based on the volume of transactions completed to date, and our ability to deliver on time, with cash on the table. Are you...

Looking to retire from practice?

Concentrating on other practice areas?

Seeking to free up working capital?

Considering disposing of a limited number of files?

Looking to reduce overheads & liabilities?

An agent or advisor with a client looking to sell?

webuyanyfiles.com

Contact Neil Hudgell on 07739 325 274

Barristers & Mediators

www.clerksroom.com 0845 083 3000 24/7

chambers

online

mediation

public access

1. The only chambers providing civil Barristers for all courts in England & Wales

1. Online booking available 24/7

1. High settlement rate

1. Online Portal

2. Free to sign up

2. 80 exclusive Barristers

3. History recorded in your login area

2. Competitive pricing structure – less expensive than court

2. Access 1000 accredited Barristers in England & Wales

3. A single point of contact saves you and your staff time and money

4. Online.clerksroom.com

3. Face to face or online mediations offered

3. Detailed profile for each Barrister

4. No travel costs for fast track & Costs claims – CPR rates only 5. Advocacy, Advice & Drafting in 24 areas of expertise 6. Consistent expertise and quality assurance for peace of mind 7. Experts grouped into 13 teams covering civil and family law 8. Excellent communication 9. Free CPD for all client firms 10. 24/7 availability at 0845 083 3000 or clerksroom.com 11. Trusted by 20,000 solicitors in England & Wales

5. You set the fee, we find the solution 6. 80 Exclusive Barristers for fast and multi-track 7.

200 linked chambers, 1000 linked Barristers for small claims and applications

8. Linked to Ashley Taylors Legal Services 9. FREE membership for all chambers

4. Experienced and friendly mediation clerks

4. Advanced search features 5. High level of security

5. Nationwide coverage

6. Online case management

6. 1000 Mediators on National Mediator database

7. Payment processing

7. Wide range of professions and backgrounds 8. Junior, senior and elite level mediators 9. Confidential mediation 10. Independent feedback and league table 11. FREE to join for all qualified mediators

8. Feedback management 9. Bar Standards Board compliance

EDITORIAL BOARD

Realise the benefits of telematics apps in a hard market How can insurance-based apps disrupt and benefit the industry?

I

n the complex world of insurance, apps provide a simple and cost-effective solution for consumers and the industry alike, and this is certainly true for telematics.

Over the last few months, the motor market has continued to harden, with the latest AA Shoparound index showing a 16.3% rise in motor premiums for the year to October 2016. During those 12 months, the measures introduced in successive Budgets have seen Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) increase from 6% to 10%, yet these have proved to be false summits.

Following the latest Autumn Statement, IPT is set to rise to 12% from June 2017, bringing with it a further upsurge in motor premiums. With prices expected to increase in 2017 for the third year in a row, the AA predicts next June’s rise alone will add around £10 a year to the average car insurance premium.

All of this means that telematics is now proving a very attractive proposition. Having been around since the mid-1990s, telematics is certainly not new to the motor industry, and the introduction of smartphone apps, such as SSP’s SoteriaDrive, has taken this mainstream.

In addition to the reduced cost of ownership with app solutions, the added value telematics provides is well-proven. Drivers under 25 will be particularly affected by the latest IPT rise, with an average increase of £35 on their premiums. It is hardly surprising then that Consumer Intelligence research found the proportion of the five cheapest quotes for this age group that came from telematics providers has leapt 16 percentage points to 55% in the last three years.

Yet the benefits of telematics go beyond achieving a price that reflects an individual’s true driving behaviour. The data provided has already been used to prove that a motorist was speeding during a fatal hit-and-run incident, a claim he initially denied.

Conversely, telemetry enabled the driver of a cloned car to prove his vehicle was nowhere near the scene of an alleged speeding offence involving the clone.

And therein lies the key to success with a telematics solution: making it relevant to the audience.

An Affront To Justice Will the measures proposed in the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation ultimately achieve lower insurance premiums for customers?

I

n a word, no.

The insurance industry has waggled the promise of reduced premiums after reforms, and failed to deliver so many times that I’m not even convinced they believe their own spin on this one.

We had similar “assurances” when LASPO came into force and yet I am still to meet one single individual who has noticed a decline in their insurance premium. This is despite the ABI’s own stats on the cost of claims showing a significant decline in the overall cost of personal injury claims, from £8.3 billion in 2010 to £5.8 billion in 2015. By contrast, the ABI also confirmed that motor insurance increased in the last 12 months by an average of 10%.

The frustration for the hard working people within the claims industry who are fighting daily battles to act for injured people are that these figures, produced by the insurance industry, are never actually referred to by that same industry that makes the ludicrous (or dare I use their own terminology and say “fraudulent”) promises that they will actually pass any savings from reform on to anyone other than their fat-cat bosses and shareholders.

The ABI’s James Dalton was quoted in October (in the Daily Mail – shock horror!) as saying (of the original shelved proposals) “‘The Ministry of Justice seems to be rowing back from much needed reform to the civil justice system that will save motorists up to £50 a year on average.” My question for Mr Dalton would be: is that the same £50 that your industry added to premiums this year for no apparent reason? In which case, it would equate to a net saving to customers of nothing.

In short, we’ve walked this path many times before. The proposed reforms are an affront to justice and serve no purpose other than to swell the share price of insurance companies, whilst injured people are left in need. The stats speak for themselves, as does the track record of failing to pass on savings.

Scott Whyte, Managing Director, Watermans.

SSP’s SoteriaDrive is the first app-led integrated telematics solution to be sold via high street brokers. The potential market of over 1,000 SSP brokers can obtain a quotation via their existing SSP system from the panel of SoteriaDrive insurers, giving consumers a wider choice for their motor cover.

Adrian Coupland, Managing Director - Data and Distribution, SSP.

January 2017

Modern Claims 27

For more details, contact Kirsten Roberts Call 0870 766 9997, Email kirsten@boxlegal.co.uk or visit www.boxlegal.co.uk

Supplied by Solicitors...for Solicitors

EDITORIAL BOARD

Progress in Our Pockets

The WellTrodden Path

How can insurance-based apps disrupt and benefit the industry?

Will the measures proposed in the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation ultimately achieve lower insurance premiums for customers?

s digital natives, young, independently-minded people have rightly come to expect that technology is here to make their lives easier. Whether it’s dating, shopping, browsing or banking, apps have made products and services more personal, more flexible and a lot more user-friendly, and insurance should be no exception to that.

A

At an industry level, apps facilitate a better understanding of consumer behaviour. They enable businesses to get closer to their customers than ever before by literally being in their pocket, and they provide an additional channel of communication that, in many cases, is more appealing to a customer than traditional forms.

From a consumer perspective, apps allow services that are conventionally viewed as outdated or inflexible to suddenly feel more relevant. Until now, insurance has been considered a ‘reluctant and expensive purchase’, especially by younger generations who don’t necessarily have enough valuable possessions to justify the large cost. In fact, we found that five million 18 – 34s have no home contents cover at all, and 2.3 million go abroad without travel insurance.

It’s not that people don’t want to protect their things and lifestyle; rather, many brands have not been able to show a disruptive tenacity to meet young, independently-minded people on their own terms. There’s no reason insurance shouldn’t be as easy and affordable as a monthly music subscription, and thanks to insurance apps, it can be.

Conceived and developed in partnership with a Millennial panel, the Back Me Up app is cost effective, flexible, and enables easy to manage cover. It’s as simple as uploading a photo to the app and choosing the item’s description. Plus, that item can be switched in and out at any time without charge. This puts the power back in the hands of the consumer, so they can decide what’s important to them, not the other way around.

As companies realise the importance of meeting the needs of people with a service that’s relevant to them, things are set to change for the better. It’s about using the technology out there to make protecting your stuff as easy and as fun as buying that stuff in the first place, without breaking the bank and making sure it’s on your terms.

Paul Lynes, Managing Director, Back Me Up.

here is a well-trodden path when it comes to promises of savings being passed on to customers. It’s a rather muddy path: energy firms failing to pass on wholesale price falls, airport retailers failing to pass on VAT savings directly etc. So why should we expect insurance companies to do the same?

T

In short, we can’t. And neither can the government be relied upon to impose such a reduction. Unlike other sectors who have been forced to pass on savings to their customers, the government has already stated publically that they have no intention to impose that a reduction is made.

But the issue of ‘savings’ to the insurers may well be academic.

I believe that the proposed changes will actually result in increased expenditure for insurance companies in order for them to be operationally fit to process injury claims worth less than £5,000.

Currently, solicitors act as a filter for Insurance firms, providing claimants with realistic case prospects and valuations, as well as weeding out the ‘non-starter’ claims. However, the impending reduction in recoverable fees means that many law firms may no longer be prepared to act. As has already been witnessed in other parts of the legal sector, such a change results in an increase of litigants-in-person (LiPs).

LiPs, by their very nature, may not have an understanding of the legal process. They have a restricted ability to form an objective assessment of their own case, or see the potential benefits of a settlement. Importantly for Insurance companies, they are under no obligation to use the Portal to bring their claim, which will result in only one thing: increased expenditure for Insurance companies.

This takes the form of increased expenditure on people to handle the increase in communication that comes with dealing with LiPs, increased expenditure associated with the office costs of having more employees, and an increase in Court costs for LiPs reluctant to settle and prepared to take their cases to trial.

One way of tackling the issue of increased operational costs is through streamlining the entire claims process and harnessing all the benefits that software and IT has to offer.

A well-known Economist, Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, once said, “Expenditure rises to meet income.” Only time will tell if Parkinson’s scholarly insight applies to this particular situation; but then of course it might be too late.

Mark Hewitt, Managing Director, Rebmark Legal Solutions.

January 2017

Modern Claims 29

Minimise losses

improve efficiency

the single platform for all legal built by

Today’s technology to solve today’s business problems.

Claims lifecycle management software designed to help enterprise insurance firms minimise losses and improve efficiency.

We are a leading innovator helping professional services firms thrive in the digital world.

Talk to us about taking a look at sharedo and finding out how it can benefit your business...

0161 3272192 hello@sharedo.co.uk www.sharedo.co.uk @sharedo_IT

Our clients include:

EDITORIAL BOARD

How to get cheaper Barristers’ fees T

he subject of discounting Barristers fees is a very hot topic, but the marketplace is changing and so is the way our solicitor clients instruct us and pay for our services.

Barristers often have to wait up to nine months for payment of private fees. Why? The obligation is on the solicitor to obtain monies on account, so why then is there a battle to obtain payment after the event? I have never really understood this.

At Clerksroom we have four staff simply chasing fees for traditionally instructed work. Conversely, our public access work is all pre-paid at the time of booking; there is no aged debt to chase.

What are the options?

Various options include your firm or company having a CCFA in place for all the work you send to chambers, so you can agree a reduced fee in the event the case is lost and you do not recover fees.

A CCFA is perfectly acceptable and easy to implement firm wide.

‘CFA-lite’ is a CFA where you can agree a lower sum, much in the same way as a CCFA. There is also the traditional CFA, but barristers will be looking for high prospects of success. If you have high prospects or liability is admitted, why not look at a CFAlite or discounted, pre-paid fee? It seems to me that most firms’ accounts systems are simply not geared up to take advantage of pre-payment discount.

If your firm could reduce its spend on Counsel’s fees by 10% over 12 months, would that not be a real competitive advantage?

Yet beware the trap! If a discounted fee is proposed based on payment terms, it needs to be properly documented to avoid any risk of fee sharing.

The key here is to be open and transparent, to check with your regulator and The Bar Council, and discuss it with us or the chambers you use.

Public Access: The Payment Cure?

However, there is also nothing to stop solicitors and other users of barristers to instruct using the public access rules if the role of the solicitor has come to an end.

At Clerksroom Direct we have seen rapid growth in solicitors passing on clients directly to Barristers as in certain circumstances, it makes perfect sense.

Public access and pre-payment can save up to 40% in certain circumstances. Have you ever considered just asking the Barrister if he will accept the fee or budget you propose?

Be Careful What You Wish For What should be the focus of insurers/solicitors following the announcement of the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation? he reforms announced by the Ministry of Justice are misguided and deeply unfair. The Government has now made it crystal clear that it wishes accident victims to have minimal or no legal representation in the future. The consequences, those intended and unintended, those foreseen and unforeseen, will be far reaching and painful for all. Never has the phrase “be careful what you wish for” sadly felt more appropriate for the claims sector.

T

Solicitors must continue to oppose the proposals at every opportunity and with all the energy and resources at their disposal.

However, there is now no doubt that major changes are coming and the sector needs to prepare in the best way that it can. That does not mean that we should cease fighting for justice and common-sense; there are after all many months of debate ahead.

But at the end, there will be substantive change.

We must still seek to improve the market, not make it worse. Do we really want CMCs/McKenzie friends dominating and exploiting claimants? Can a sufficiently robust regulatory framework be put in place to prevent the worst abuses of vulnerable accident victims? Can we prevent abuses being displaced into exaggerated credit hire, repair and rehabilitation? How well will the genuinely injured be looked after?

Insurers need to begin preparation if Legal Expenses Insurance is to survive the reforms as it is currently modelled. In the absence of legal representation, they need to plan how they are going to deal with a dramatically increased number of LIPs (motor insurance customers). It is likely that this will mean new departments to deal directly with claimants and CMCs representing LIPs. With the further increase in IPT announced in the Autumn Statement, and some analysts already predicting future hikes, it is perfectly clear that the always questionable £40 saving on motor premiums is very unlikely to materialise.

The sector will likely change almost beyond recognition in coming years. When our squabbling is over, the tragedy is that ordinary people, including family and friends, will still have so called ‘minor’ accidents and be injured through no fault of their own. The “reforms” will make it difficult, but we must all still try to continue to look after them in the best way that we can.

Donna Scully, Partner, Carpenters.

At Clerksroom we actively encourage this approach to fixed fees where possible. Fixed fees are the norm these days, providing certainty for the client, firm and barrister.

Stephen Ward, Managing Director, Clerksroom, Clerksroom Direct & Clerksroom Mediators.

January 2017

Modern Claims 31

MCM16 Watermans HP AD.pdf

1

17/11/2015

15:58

Got a case in Scotland? Our award winning team are there for you when you need us most and our expertise and dedication to our clients will ensure that you are in safe hands. With coverage throughout Scotland our personal injury specialists and TotalCare rehabilitation service ensures that our clients receive medical and legal expertise whenever they need it.

Call us today to see how we can assist you.

01315164 481 www.watermans.ws The Oval Office, 83 The Shore Leith, Edinburgh EH6 6RG

Insurance pedigree plus technical expertise?

That’s worth celebrating.

Introducing Triton Technical...

We are proud to announce the launch of Triton Technical.

Augmenting Triton’s established full service offering, our compliance driven IT services provide state of the art software coupled with our legal, claims and adjusting insurance services.

Our expertise range from world class risk management software to IT security and cyber resilience.

Looking for technical insurance support? Call Triton: www.triton-global.com | info@triton-global.com | 0333 010 0000 Triton Global is an independent business, owned by its employees.

EDITORIAL BOARD

What effect would an Online Court have on the claims sector? had reason to ponder this question recently when I sat in court on a complex application. Counsel was poised to launch into argument in support of the application. It was not required. As it happens, the judge agreed with our case so we were well pleased with this outcome.

I

The point is that the role of the lawyers in the matter was limited to preparing the documents, which sealed the outcome of the case. Even a traditionalist like myself asked: why were a number of lawyers sitting in court when this was so patently unnecessary, and how many cases could be disposed of on paper or online?

This thought process is not a new one. The Courts Service seems determined to set up an Online Court to make online dispute resolution a reality, creating processes for the first time for litigation without lawyers. We are told that this will be geared, at least to start with, at cases of small (financial) value.

While much of the debate has revolved around how attractive this will be for the consumers, occasional litigants, the insurance industry needs to look at the impact on the professionals, namely the claims managers, who have to respond to such claims?

The whole process of making and responding to a claim can be a fairly mechanical one. On one view, dealing with an Online Court would simply require a claims manager to expand the work (already done online) to analyse, record and respond to a particular claim. Of course, this is never going to work for more difficult cases where there is more at stake than ‘mere money’. But the majority of cases would in my view, be capable of being spelt out on paper. The written presentations will be supplemented by judiciously phrased, interactive questioning by the Online Court, with a layer of mediation to help the resolution process.

The impact on claims managers is likely to be a vast increase in workload because of the need to multi-task, and not merely export to the court the details of the case from a claims management system. This is likely to encourage a new breed of claims administrator, combining legal and forensic skills with the ability to act as the “advocate” on the case, albeit through the medium of the written word going out into the ether.

David Simon, Chairman, Triton Global Limited.

Facing up to fraud What impact will the measures proposed in the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation rise have on Fraud? he Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation has been a hot topic in the press recently, but I still don’t think it will ultimately achieve lower insurance premiums. We’ve been here before; previous radical reform to personal injury has generated massive savings to insurers, but premiums have still gone up. Data from the ABI shows claims costs fell in 2015, the fifth consecutive year of falling costs, and were more than 30% lower than in 2010. In effect, the insurers have had a £8.73billion windfall over the last five years, and yet premiums have continued to rise. The claims of a £40 reduction in premiums have had no independent verification, and the government has already admitted it has no intention of intervening to force insurers to pass on savings.

T

The promise of a £40 premium cut has been quickly cast into doubt by the autumn statement. Chancellor Philip Hammond announced that the standard rate of insurance premium tax will rise to 12% from June 2017. Huw Evans, Director General of the Association of British Insurers remarked “It marks a doubling of insurance premium tax since last year, and to claim a consultation on whiplash reforms (which hasn’t even gone before parliament yet) will offset this just won’t cut it.” In other words: forget about your £40 saving.

A fairer way of cutting motoring costs would be to reduce road fund, excise duty, congestion charges and IPT. Fraud has also been coming up frequently in debates. First and foremost, there is no evidence supporting the insurer-held belief that there is widespread fraud in this industry. “It’s an epidemic!” we are told, when in reality such cases are actually relatively rare.

An analysis of the ABI’s own figures shows that only 0.25 per cent of motor claims are proven to be fraudulent. The figures included policyholders exaggerating their own claims, or making false declarations when applying for insurance. Fraudsters will still commit fraud if they remain unchallenged, the proposed changes will not change this. Claimant lawyers are very experienced at vetting claims and weeding out fraud. Without legal representation, fraudsters, through dishonest CMC’s, will submit claims without hindrance. Target the fraudsters, not the nation’s innocent law abiding motorists.

As a Managing Partner of a Solicitor’s firm, I think cold calling should be made a criminal offence; the public hates it and it encourages people to claim. Put a 12-month timescale on bringing a claim to stop data mining. Finally, insurers need to stop issuing policies to fraudsters; they have the tools to do this at the point of policy inception.

Neil Garvin, Managing Partner, Garvins Solicitors (associated with the EDAM Group).

January 2017

Modern Claims 33

Over 20 years of Medico-Legal excellence (Tier 1 MRO) Market Leading Service Unrivalled in-house Medical Expertise D e d i c a t e d Te a m s f o r H i g h V a l u e C l a i m s

www.doctorschambers.com

EDITORIAL BOARD

Business as usual in 2017?

Not if you want to avoid failure What should be the focus of insurers/solicitors following the announcement of the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation?

J

ust Costs, the sector’s largest costs law firm, entered into a CVA in November 2016. The firm announced: “it’s business as usual”.

The PI sector is considering its options. Profit improvement and lean working is top priority. However, far from being “business as usual”, business will never be the same again.

Firms are facing insolvency; too late for turnaround or disposal at value. Those who’ve had their heads in the sand of denial now face the inevitable end – and that’s even before the Government’s proposed reforms kick in.

There are a number of businesses (and their funders) that have been kidding themselves about working capital requirements, realisable WIP and the operational and financial expertise required to future-proof them in PI. What is happening now is the repercussions of new market entrants in the past 10 years who did not have a strong (or any) trading history in PI, and thought it was easy.

In fact, it is not easy. Since fixed costs were first introduced in 2003 and widened in 2013, when success fees and ATE recoverability was also lost, profit margins have been slashed.

Costs budgeting and proportionality have represented a significant challenge.

Poor WIP books and businesses have been bought and with poor profit; was the DD sufficient?

Accountants advise on historical performance which is irrelevant when profit goalposts are consistently moving.

Some banks have exited but others and private equity have plunged millions into PI, with poor DD and tracking of business performance and strategy.

Many have found cashflows don’t materialise, so additional cash injection is required. Parabis was the first PE backed ABS top 30 law firm consistently capitalised by Duke Street Capital, until it crashed 12 months ago.

The costs lawyers that sprung up in the PI heyday have seen their work dry up in the last 18 months and we will see market consolidation.

All firms with a PI element should look seriously at their business model.

Nothing is certain in PI. Evidence can turn on a hairpin and cases collapse. The same goes for Government reforms, banking policies, professional advisors and business viability. The “Yes men” who get deals over the line may not be the best to advise you at this crucial stage.

Debt reduction has got to be high on the 2017 business critical agenda together with strong cash-flow, reducing WIP lock up and avoiding insolvency.

An Appetite for Disruption How can insurance-based apps disrupt and benefit the industry? ver the last decade, the insurance industry has seen a need to change perceptions, particularly when it comes to technological growth. The rapid advancement in technology has taken application development to a new level and there are now huge opportunities for insurance firms to leverage data platforms as a way to improve overall operations and customer service.

O

To truly benefit and remain relevant, insurers need to start investing in mobile technology, as customers are now taking interest in providers that can offer efficient and simple processes – specifically from smartphones, iPads and tablets.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 62% of insurance executives believe mobile technology will be the key disrupter for the industry, bringing with it a number of benefits: Simplified claims processing This proves beneficial to both the customer and agent. Apps have been proven to reduce the workload of the insurer by eliminating a number of time-sapping administrative duties, such as filing forms and collating customer data, allowing them to spend their time acquiring and processing a higher volume of customers.

For consumers, the streamlined process ensures claims are handled quickly and efficiently whilst providing the option to track progress, ultimately putting their minds at ease and simultaneously eliminating the number of ‘update’ calls to providers.

Increased revenue Providing customer-centric options, such as capabilities to buy new policies, renew existing ones and pay bills via smartphones, increases the chances for insurers to generate larger profits.

Additionally, a number of apps now enable providers to stay connected 24/7, enabling them to process and complete claims, as well as effectively manage potential customers, all from their phone, further serving to drive customer satisfaction and retention.

Accurate and personalised policies Using telematics and wearable technologies, insurers are able to collate real-time information about a customer’s driving behaviour or lifestyle, and therefore accurately assess tailored policies. These technologies serve to encourage consumers to drive safely and/ or adopt a healthy way of life by offering discounts, deals or reductions in premiums for ‘good behaviour’. In theory, this then enables insurers to save on compensation pay-outs.

To conclude, mobile technology is enabling insurers to maintain profitability. From apps that allow customers to claim damages instantly, through to productivity apps that keep agents connected to the office, this new technology is ensuring risks are mitigated, productivity is increased, customer service is enhanced and operational efficiencies are improved.

Sarah Roberts, Marketing Executive, Eclipse Legal Systems.

Lesley Graves, Managing Director, Citadel Law.

January 2017

Modern Claims 35

For great business rates give us a call on 0116 217 3531 or visit europcar.co.uk/business

Laura’s Europcar Modern Claims Advert.indd 1

20/12/2016 09:44

Buying or selling IN the personal injury sector?

INVEST IN EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE THE WHY

M&A in the personal injury sector is a challenging and specialist area.

The Who

ZebraLCTM is the UKs leading technical due diligence expert in personal injury.

The USP

n Instructed in the highest profile ‘sector first’ M&A deals n ISO 9001 accredited for due diligence in the legal sector and SRA registered n UK legal sector M&A Awards; Acquisition International Award 2015 & Corporate LiveWire 2016

The Testimonial Tim Ritchie Head of M&A, Fairpoint Group PLC Unique blend of legal and financial expertise…discreet and confidential.

CONTACT

Projects Team: 0161 962 9324 Confidential Enquiries: zoeholland@zebralc.co.uk stevenastley@zebralc.co.uk www.zebralc.co.uk @zebralc

EDITORIAL BOARD

High Impact, High Risk

Defending against fraud

How will the claims reforms impact on business viability?

What impact will the measures proposed in the Ministry of Justice’s whiplash consultation have on fraud?

ach and every firm that is potentially touched by these reforms must understand and anticipate the range of impact and outcomes, based around Management Information and KPI’s. Those data sets must be honed and refined to give law firm management the tools with which to make strategic decisions going forward. Without them, firms are operating in the dark and the outcome may not be what they would like.

E

The biggest 2 areas of risk are: 1. Removing the right to recover damages for RTA related soft tissue injury in cases of 0-6 or 9 months duration, or fixing all such damages claims at £400-£425 (with psychological element).

With this kind of ‘either/or’ proposal, the full impact is likely to be vastly different. If the right to recover is abolished for injury lasting less than 6 or 9 months, the impact on these books of work will be high. The vast majority of low value, volume based RTA work will be caught by the proposals. All the correlated income will be removed from law firms, who ought to understand how that impacts their own portfolio. If the fixed sum approach is adopted, at either the £400 level or above, the impact will also be high, but some firms may have processes to be able to run the cases at either small profit or as loss leaders. Others should leave this part of the market.

Impact assessment: High Risk 2. Raising the small claims limit for all personal injury claims to £5,000 This is the single largest threat to the profession to come from the proposed reforms. This may impact all areas of Personal Injury, or just RTA, which is still to be decided. Firms that have reliance on RTA work will be severely impacted. It is likely to mean the reduction of viable claims by a very high percentage, perhaps even 85%. The question for many Firms would be whether they can profitably run the cases on the back of the clients’ damages and success fee contribution. If the limit was to rise to £5000 in all areas, the impact on all personal injury firms would be as catastrophic, as for RTA only firms discussed above. The only personal injury practices that would be untouched by this proposal would be those only operating in the multi-track/high value personal injury segment of the market.

Impact assessment: CRITICAL High Risk

MI Bodyshops (NAB & VBRA), the UK’s trade association for vehicle repairers, was very concerned when it was announced that proposals to reform how the insurance industry deals with claims for whiplash injuries have been put on hold by the government.

The UK has one of the worst whiplash records in the world, and on average whiplash costs the country £2 billion a year

The bodyshop repair industry works closely with insurers as important supply chain partners, and anything that prevents a healthy and accountable insurance market is negative and must be addressed.

There are also other ramifications for our body repair members and consumers that may not at first seem obvious.

R

Legal firms have viewed potential whiplash claims as a cash cow, resulting in a divisive culture of obtaining motorists’ data following an accident by any means. Personal data records are hot property, and we are seeing that these are being obtained by both physical and electronic means.

This has drawn our attention to Cyber security and IT license agreements used within the claims and repair process. Working with insurers, we want to bolster this area, with robust and standardised agreements that suppliers have to abide by and comply with the Data Protection act of 1998. We have also written to the ABI and hope that they can be involved in this project with us.

The body shop sector has worked effectively together with insurers before, on standards such as BS10125 and Estimator Accreditation testing.

We have also been liaising closely with different elements of the sector, including the Information Commissioners office, to bring about a change.

A recent market analysis undertaken by ourselves showed that current IT user and Data agreements are at very best opaque, and may well serve to harm the industry if action is not also taken by removing the personal injury claim incentive.

We will be responding to the consultation, and seeking a meeting with government to outline our views. This whole area represents clear reputational risk for Body shops and insurers alike.

Zoe Holland, Managing Director, ZebraLC. Jason Moseley, Executive Director, Retail Motor Industry Federation.

January 2017

Modern Claims 37

Future Proofing Roundtable As 2016 drew to a close, Modern Claims gathered a roundtable of experts from the claims sector to analyse how the market can survive and thrive in the year ahead, and the years to come. Liam Lambert reports on the discussion.

SC: What challenges will the personal injury and clinical negligence sectors face in 2017?

BD: The obvious thing to mention is the whiplash consultation, and we shouldn’t look at that without also looking at higher value claims, or mid value claims, and the fixed costs consultation.

MB: The one big difference for defendant lawyers is we’ve been used to working with a regime of fixed fees for a long time now, so we have been able to adjust our business models to address the challenges. It’s perfectly possible to run a successful and profitable business using fixed fees.

One of the biggest compensators that’s going to be affected by this is the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA), which is probably why the government has been so slow to tackle it. There’s a lot more that can be done in the healthcare sector to prevent accident and injury in the first place, and that should be the focus at the moment.

TD: Specifically for us, it’s about reinventing yet again. What we do is all based on actuarial data. We’re trying to predict the future, which is very difficult in a new regime. The challenge involves working with the right firms that have the right expertise and recognising our ATE premiums are going to change and probably reduce if there is downward pressure on the costs that we insure.

ZH: We’ve been looking at consolidation for a long time, and next year is going to be the year that it really takes effect. We’re going to see firms exit out of PI; the raising of the small claims limit will make it very hard for some of them to survive. Those with the best data will survive.

Clinical negligence is a very different challenge. What we’ve seen on our end is a lack of sophistication around firm data, so it’s going to be very hard for them to manoeuvre quickly enough to do fixed recoverable costs.

PG: The bar has to wake up to new technologies. My chambers have been trying to be paperless for years now, but the issue is trying to get solicitors to be paperless, or the NHSLA to have everything computerised. We can have virtual hearings, we can use Web X, and we can use Skype. This technology can work, but the courts don’t have the technology.

MB: It’s about using technology to augment what we do. I have a saying, “necessity is the mother of invention.” As costs are getting squeezed and the cost of litigation increases, lawyers on every side need to find new ways of resolving issues together.

38 Modern Claims

Attendees Steve Carter (SC), COO, SpectraLegal – Chair Matthew Gwynne (MG), Director of Business Development and Client Relations, SpectraLegal Ed Fletcher (EF), Chief Executive, Fletchers Solicitors Gary Carrington (GC), COO, Fletchers Solicitors Brett Dixon (BD), Vice President, APIL Ian Curtis-Nye (ICN), Senior Manager, Meruit Costs, Lyons Davidson Michael Brown (MB), Senior Partner, BLM Law Philip Grundy (PG), Barrister, St Johns Buildings Zoe Holland (ZH), Managing Director, Zebra LC Tony Dyas (TD), Senior Business Developer, Allianz Matthew Kain (MK), Managing Director, Kain Knight

You have to be dogmatic and say: you have to accept these changes, or you’re going to die off Philip Grundy, St Johns Chambers SC: Do you see the virtual court process as the way forward?

EF: Yes, inevitably. Technology can be an enabler, as can structure, process, and fixed fees. But the biggest driver is going to be changing behaviour, and if behaviour doesn’t change on everyone’s part, we won’t get to where we need to be. We’ve got a system that has evolved over a period of time, and people with different interests in that process have moulded and guided things in order to get the most out of it.

SC: How much of costs comes through inefficiency and poor practice, and how much is just the ‘nature of the beast’ of litigation?

ICN: A case that settles very early on will cost a lot less, but the claimant may not have control over whether that case settles early on or not. You could have two identical cases, and one case will cost considerably more than the other because it has gone to trial.

MK: The whole cost management piece has added another layer of cost that wasn’t there beforehand. There was a process in place before, and detailed assessment to look at the reasonableness of

January 2017

FEATURES

We’re dealing with something very precious: an injured person’s right to redress. If you do anything to disrupt that too much, all of the law firms that have been around to represent them will not be able to continue Brett Dixon, APIL a cost, and it seemed to work. Litigation is adversarial, so it is a behavioural issue that has got to be addressed.

ICN: 2017 is going to be a year of uncertainty for everybody. We are very good at adapting to changes in the market. The problem is, we don’t necessarily know where those changes are going to finally be.

SC: This brings us on to the proposals of the MoJ consultation; how will this factor into 2017?

GC: ATE still has a role to play in the future. But if the small claims limit goes up to £5000, the client will have to pay more and share more of their damages in order to make the cases viable.

ZH: It’s old-fashioned lawyering to think your client isn’t going to have to pay more. You have to prove that you are the best at what you do, in order to justify that.

BD: Capping a whiplash claim of a certain duration at £400 does not leave much to pay for representation. Either people move towards not bringing claims, or you will see courts getting clogged up with litigants in person. The genuine thing that the government appears to miss in all of this is that you might control the number of claims, but you cannot control the root cause: the number of accidents. It’s a lesson that could well be learned by the NHSLA. SC: Fraud is almost alleged in this change isn’t it? Are there different ways this could be dealt with?

BD: The big problem with the political approach is the moving of the rhetoric away from that of fraudulent claims, to what is labelled as ‘unnecessary claims’. You are potentially preventing a whole class of people from bringing a claim for a particular type of injury for political reasons.

MB: It’s the farming of claims that is creating problems, rather than the process. As long as CMCs can see there’s profit to be made by farming claims, this will continue. It’s in the interests of all parties

January 2017

around this table to work together. The elephant in the room is the issue of profit. We’re all in business to make profit, and everyone wants to maximise that profit. Behaviours need to change.

SC: Are fixed fees the right way forward for clinical negligence cases?

GC: The key is fixed time scales and sanctions for those who don’t stick to those time scales.

PG: You need to change the NHSLA’s behaviour. The chances of settling cases at the beginning of the budget year are much greater than those at the end of the year.

EF: Fixed fees, by their very nature, will change claimant lawyer behaviour. What’s the driver to change the behaviour of the NHSLA and the trusts in this process? That’s the key question. Fixed fees can definitely work. We set up our model on the basis of this. However, we all need to understand that very low value cases have irreducible costs that will make lower value clinical negligence matters look disproportionate. That will be the case for at least five years.

ZH: Firms just won’t take on these lower value cases; at that lower value, you have to spot winners, and you can’t take on any claims where you aren’t sure.

GC: I’ve crunched the numbers down to the nth degree. You can be paperless, you can use tech, and you can train your people to be as good as they can be. Even then, it would still be disproportionate.

TD: The NHSLA produced a list of firms that take the most money. Having spoken to some of those firms, they are giving a similar indication that there will be a level of claim that will not be economic to run.

MB: What about damages based agreements? Is that something that’s going to come to the fore?

ICN: The indemnity principal is a massive challenge for DBA’s at

Modern Claims 39

FEATURES

the moment. You can do a certain amount of work under a DBA, and then some of it may be unrecoverable due to the level of damages recovered. The current DBA format needs to shift.

SC: We’re saying that damage based agreements bring issues around getting the same amounts whether you settle early or late. Is the proportionality argument effectively doing the same thing, and creating a conflict for lawyers?

PG: A good example is delayed diagnoses in cancer cases. Say there’s a claim worth £500,000, and the decision is reached that the delayed diagnosis hasn’t led to the ultimate demise; all that would have happened is that they would have died anyway. The value of the claim is £50,000, but the cost is £100,000. That’s the nightmare situation, and it’s an example of where proportionality can come back to bite you.

MG: I actually see proportionality as being the biggest challenge going forward. Look at noise induced hearing loss cases, for example.

Generally speaking, the damages in those cases are quite small, but the complexities involved mean costs are high, and they look disproportionate. You’ve then got firms trying to forecast what the fee income is going to be, and working out where to put funding for the next 12 months. How do you build that into a financial model?

GC: With great difficulty!

SC: From the insurer’s point of view, if you lose, and you have to pay the defendant’s costs, how does proportionality fit in?

MB: I think the public’s perception is that the provision of legal services is expensive. Going to a lawyer for advice and for an outcome is expensive, so the issue of proportionality is difficult for lawyers to address. The industry as a whole faces some very fundamental challenges that go beyond proportionality too. There is a genuine opportunity for a new disruptor-type legal model, set up separately from the legacy that many law firms have, and they can really make a difference.

BD: We’re dealing with something very precious: an injured person’s right to redress. If you do anything to disrupt that too much, all of the law firms that have been around to represent them will not be able to continue, because they will not have this new promised land of technology. We need to fix costs based on the process that exists at the moment.

40 Modern Claims

We’ve been used to working with a regime of fixed fees for a long time now, so we have been able to adjust our business models to address the challenges. It’s perfectly possible to run a successful and profitable business using fixed fees Michael Brown, BLM Law TD: It’s not happening with clinical negligence. The direction of travel has to start looking at costs. Where are the costs coming from? How can we change that cost base? We’ve got to look forward, we can’t look at what’s happened in the past.

SC: How is costs budgeting impacting bigger cases?

ICN: Costs budgeting can work. The difficulty we have with it is the lack of consistency, with regards to cost budgeting regionally.

Different judges take different approaches. Also, in a half an hour hearing, you can’t deal with nuanced arguments around proportionality on a cost budget. Proportionality is sometimes applied as a blunt instrument. It can work, but it needs to be more consistent across the board.

SC: On the defendant side, you’ve got exactly the same issues with cost budgeting. It seems to be intrinsically linked with the argument of proportionality, the idea that we’re trying to get away from arguing at the end to arguing at the beginning. Is it going to be a process that people find beneficial?

MB: In theory, it should be, but in practice it doesn’t seem to be at the moment. It’s just bringing all the arguments to the front rather than the back, while the costs sit in the same place.

MK: Until you know what the case settles at, the test of proportionality is still going to come at the end.

January 2017

FEATURES

We’ve been looking at consolidation for a long time, and next year is going to be the year that it really takes effect.

We’re going to see firms exit out of PI. […] Those with the best data will survive Zoe Holland, Zebra LC MB: There is a very low frequency of firms going back to court to have the cost budget reviewed or adjusted, which has been quite a surprise. If some evidence comes along and says a case is worth more or less than we all thought, then adjustments could be made, i.e. to address proportionality.

SC: Are some fee earners just trained to win cases, and not within a reasonable cost?

ZH: It’s partly that, and partly that lawyers generally do tend to work in silo. Unless they’re at board level or partnership equity level, discussions other than their own billings target don’t really happen. In our profession, we haven’t been good in bringing people into the wider discussion about profitability.

SC: Will firms need to adjust, not just their business models, but also what they track, and how they record things?

GC: Certainly; if your damages level dictates whether or not you can or can’t take a case on, that’s fundamental.

ZH: Some ATE providers use clinical assessment or GP assessment to decide whether a case should be insured or not. That doesn’t take into account quantum or proportionality. It takes a legal brain, or the right data, to determine whether a case should be insured.

TD: We always ask firms how their business model works, through data and by asking them to prove to us they have a sustainable business model. Only a minority of firms can provide good quality data.

SpectraLegal Finance Launched in 2015 we offer specialist finance to law firms operating in the new legal landscape brought about by The LASPO Act of 2012. Our focus is on assisting law firms offering legal services under CFA and/or DBA retainer arrangements and we provide innovative facilities with a full understanding of the risks and unique needs of modern day law firms. We are not just a source of money, but a value added partner, providing flexible strategic capital.

Using our proprietary systems and software we are able to analyse a wide range of information including how various aspects of the firm and its suppliers are performing. This unique insight coupled with our expert analysis can help improve efficiency and drive growth.

SpectraLegal was formed by the principals of BridgePoint Financial Group, Canada’s leading provider of litigation finance and risk management solutions. Bridgepoint have funded over 750 Canadian law firms in the last 11 years, and with the adoption of the Ontario model in the UK, our management team is uniquely positioned to understand the pressures and opportunities that UK law firms are now experiencing.

Visit us at www.spectralegal.co.uk

ATE still has a role to play in the future. But with the small claims limit going up to £5000, the client will have to pay more and share more of their damages in order to make the cases viable Gary Carrington, Fletchers Solicitors

SC: Should changing business models be a concern for smaller firms?

SC: So why is mediation not more popular?

BD: Any firm in this market would be foolish not to look at their business models and plan for what they think might happen. They might find that their business model can’t flex to fit in, and it will just snap. It comes back to the point about gathering proper data.

Some firms might think it’s a good idea to test a business model, but they don’t have the right data.

ZH: As we said, it’s behaviour. Mediation is a word in the ether, but there’s not the appetite to use it. If we’re talking about today and the visible future, cash in law firms is the real issue. It’s a perfect storm: a time of fundamental change where we need innovation, but firms don’t have the cash to do that.

ZH: That’s the scenario. We can walk into a firm turning over £25 million, and their data is shocking. They’ve got no chance of thinking how they’re going to remodel. They needed to start collating that data over the last number of years. Now is almost too late.

MB: Generally speaking, if you’re 40 years plus you’re supposed to treat technological change with suspicion. The client is of today, and they want businesses to respond to today. You’ll have a claimant who wants news of their case on an app. The problem is that the owners of law firms tend to be 40 plus.

PG: You have to be dogmatic and say: you have to accept these changes, or you’re going to die off.

MG: Those same cash flow pressures can influence the type of finance a firm takes on, and some of that finance may be inappropriate given case durations, or run in contravention of client money rules.

GC: But the industry will adapt, because there are some very innovative people at the top of it. Lawyers are very good at looking after the best interests of their clients, but not at looking after the best interests of their pockets. We will mould and adapt.

Kindly Sponsored by

MB: If you’ve got equity partners who are resistant or fearful of change, they’re also going to be resistant to reach into their pocket to fund that change. It should drive different solutions, like mediation. You have to pay the fees of a mediator, but a mediator’s fees might be quite proportionate compared to court fees.

January 2017

Modern Claims 41

FEATURES

The Future of ATE – 2017 and Beyond Tony Dyas takes stock of After the Event insurance, predicting what will change in the industry this year and analysing how firms can be ready to embrace these changes. here does after the event (ATE) insurance go from here?

If you asked most providers that question in the lead up to LASPO in 2013, then you could be forgiven for thinking that there wouldn’t be an ATE market in 2017. If you asked ATE providers now, most would at best be cautiously optimistic about the future.

W

At ALP we were quick to recognise what LASPO would mean for our customers, and whilst this was the biggest change the ATE market has ever seen, the future still looks rosy, if a little different.

So what is the key to making ATE successful? For us it’s simple: stop looking back and start listening to your customers. We are not going to have recoverable premiums for personal injury ever again and it’s a strong possibility that recoverability won’t be here for clinical negligence in a year’s time.

Facing Reality

We are not going to have recoverable premiums for personal injury ever again and it’s a strong possibility that recoverability won’t be here for clinical negligence in a year’s time.

So is there a downside to this? Yes. Let’s face it: with change there will be some losers.

• There is a move towards fixed costs, starting with clinical negligence and spreading to all types of litigation.

• The costs for ATE insurers to insure are reducing. Apart from court fees, there appears to be a continuing downward pressure on disbursement costs as the cost of accessing justice reduces (some would say when accessing justice becomes harder).

• Solicitors practices are consolidating, some firms will cease trading and others will get bigger.

• If, as predicted, the small claims court limit increases, there could be some cases where ATE is no longer appropriate.

• Will ATE be there for any type of dispute? Probably not. Let’s look at Noise Induced Hearing Loss. A combination of increasing costs, low settlement values and having to issue proceedings on all cases means that it is almost impossible at the moment to have a proportionate ATE premium to support claimants. This can’t be a good thing for claimants but with a changing market comes innovation and the potential for new emerging models.

So you can never say never.

• Premiums will be lower – so there is less premium for the ATE provider for each policy. That’s inevitable, but against that there is less risk to manage. For ALP it’s how we diversify into new and emerging ATE markets whilst maintaining our leading position in personal injury and clinical negligence.

So let’s look at the positives from these changes;

Facing the Future

The reality of the ATE world is:

• Fixed costs – this is an opportunity for ATE providers to develop new and innovative products. Markets change, which is not always a bad thing, so innovation is key to deliver for our solicitors and policyholders.

• Reducing disbursement costs – this has to be good for our policyholders. At the moment, the costs we see vary hugely from firm to firm for providing the same service. The changes give us more certainty by gaining more control over costs. So there will be less premium, but more certainty. Ask any reputable Underwriter which they would prefer to have!

• Consolidation – in my experience this means that solicitor firms are becoming more expert. By more expert, I mean better at developing customer propositions, better at managing costs and more demanding of their ATE provider. If they are more demanding, it means we have to up our game and provide better products. But those better products will have a longer shelf life as they are built around customer need.

• The small claims court limit – no one has worked out the answer to this one yet. But my money is on an innovative law firm knocking at our door in the next few months with an idea that none of us have thought of.

42 Modern Claims

So what is the future? The simple answer is that we need to be better at what we do. It is also about working with the right solicitors who also have a compelling vision of the future.

Like any business, we need to diversify, but having the right disciplines and some patience is important too. It is easy to have a list as long as your arm of all the ATE business we could write, but we need to find expert firms and develop our expertise further.

Having worked for ALP for most of my career and in ATE since 2000, I have ditched the rose tinted specs. The early days of ATE were fun as it was all new and books of business were growing rapidly. Now that I’m older and wiser, it’s now more fulfilling, as everything is built around what the customer wants and we have the freedom to innovate.

With only a small fraction of legal disputes being insured, there are plenty of ATE opportunities out there!

Tony Dyas is Senior Business Developer at Allianz Legal Protection.

January 2017

Mediation Focus

The relationship of fixed fees to mediation.

Tim Wallis suggests that the connection between fixed fees and mediation reveals an important business message. ediation continues to become more established as an integral part of the litigation process. For example, in October 2016 Briggs LJ stated, in relation to the proposed online court, that “Mediation will become the cultural norm…”

Further, in December 2016, the NHS LA announced the launch of its new mediation service and the appointment of Trust Mediation, CEDR and CADR to its mediation panel.

M

You do not have to be a futurologist to know that fixed costs are becoming ever more pervasive. In January 2016 Jackson LJ called for fixed costs to apply to all claims valued up to £250,000 (He also urged a pause relating clinical negligence fixed fees to avoid piecemeal reform). In September 2016 the MoJ consultation paper “Transforming our Justice System” demonstrated the intent to extend the recoverable costs regime, and two months later Jackson LJ opened a fixed costs review concerning the wide range of cases to which fixed fees should apply.

Fixed costs have been around for some time. The brief fee is one example, albeit that some flex is available by means of a daily “refresher”, and the USA style contingency fee is a fixed fee. In the nineties, many insurers introduced fixed fees for large tranches of litigation work, which means that defendant lawyers have become experienced at working on this basis, and of course we have had RTA Predictable Costs since 2003 and fixed fees on the Claims Portal from when it was introduced in 2010.

Civil Justice Reforms and the relationship of fixed fees to mediation

The reforms that are currently proposed, however, go much further and have the potential to impact on huge volumes of claimant personal injury and clinical negligence claims, as well as commercial litigation. This will be a game-changer, because the economics of fixed fees are fundamentally different to hourly rate fees. The obvious business challenge presented by a fixed fee is how to obtain the desired result for the client and still make a profit. There are a number of solutions to this problem. One is to streamline and automate processes by using case management systems to reduce the number of times a file is handled and the total time spent.

Another solution is to manage the settlement process to reduce the life cycle of the claim. This is where mediation comes in. If you are on a fixed fee and you have access to a settlement tool which can successfully bring early settlement in the vast majority of cases, why wouldn’t you use it? Sure, it costs money, like case management systems, but they both produce results.

If you are on a fixed fee and you have access to a settlement tool which can successfully bring early settlement in the vast majority of cases, why wouldn’t you use it?

You do not need a trial bundle to settle a case, nor do you need one to mediate. All that you need is sufficient information to make a business decision. You also need to understand your client: What is their (a) appetite for risk and (b) viewpoint on the issue of a business-like settlement of approximately the right amount today, versus the prospect of a more accurate figure at some point in the future? Most clients are risk averse and tend to prefer a practical settlement now rather than the “right” amount next year.

“Well”, say many litigators, “we go for a joint settlement meeting (JSM) if we can’t settle by Part 36 or negotiation”. JSMs are popular, not least because by the time they are usually held, much of the trial prep has been carried out, and it is relatively straightforward to predict the trial outcome. The problem with JSMs, however, if you are on a fixed fee, is that they tend to take place late in the day, by which time the costs expended mean that the profit element of the fixed fee is much reduced. Mediation can take place at a much earlier stage.

So, is early mediation easy? Yes, provided that you have sufficient expertise to asses the likely outcome of cases at an early stage and if you have developed experience of using the mediation process.

Many mediation users follow a similar development pattern: when they start to use mediation they tend to do so close to trial, but when they become more experienced they use it earlier, including pre-proceedings.

Fixed fees are coming, they present a profitability problem. The various solutions include mediation.

Tim Wallis is a Mediator and Solicitor, Chairman of Trust Mediation Limited, director of Expedite Resolution Limited and other mediation organisations, and Chairman of Claims Portal Limited.

® Proclaim is the only Practice e v a H Management Software solution Endorsed by the Law Society. you heard? CALL 01274 704 100 www.eclipselegal.co.uk/lawsociety lawsociety@eclipselegal.co.uk

Mediation Focus

“No mediation please – we’re litigators” Mark Field examines why commercial considerations hamper the more widespread use of mediation.

A

s Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School London has remarked, “mediation is like sex – it is thought about more often than it is practised”.

The so-called Woolf Reforms were embodied in the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) that came into effect on 26 April 1999.

These reforms were intended to address the two main concerns that Lord Woolf had identified: the slow speed and great expense of litigation.

The hope was that if cases were resolved more rapidly, there would be a reduction in costs. Under the CPR, the management of cases is by the court, not by the parties’ solicitors, and the parties are expected to conduct litigation in a way that fulfils the “overriding objective”.

The overriding objective has been expanded since its introduction such that the court is required to manage a case not only “justly” (the original requirement) but also “at proportionate cost”.

One management tool introduced by the CPR was the allocation of cases to a track - readers of Modern Claims Magazine will be fully familiar with the multi-, fast and small claims tracks. Once the Defence has been filed, the parties’ solicitors submit to the court a Directions Questionnaire (originally called the Allocation Questionnaire). The Questionnaire helps the court to decide the appropriate track for a case. It begins:-

A. Settlement

Under the Civil Procedure Rules parties should make every effort to settle their case before the hearing. This could be by discussion or negotiation (such as a roundtable meeting or settlement conference) or by a more formal process such as mediation. The court will want to know what steps have been taken. Settling the case early can save costs, including court hearing fees.

For legal representatives only

I confirm that I have explained to my client the need to try to settle; the options available; and the possibility of costs sanctions if they refuse to try to settle.

The confirmation required of legal representatives is given by ticking a box, and a “tick box” exercise it quickly became.

How many insurers reading this article have been contacted by a panel solicitor, about to complete an Allocation or Directions Questionnaire, to discuss “the need to try to settle; the options available; and the possibility of costs sanctions if they refuse to try to settle”? Yet that would be an ideal time to do so; the defendant’s solicitor will have only recently received the file and will have brought a fresh eye to the negotiations which have taken place between the insurer and the claimant’s solicitor. The defendant’s solicitor will have identified the issues that prevented

44 Modern Claims

It is surprising that insurers are not more pro-active in driving mediation pre-litigation settlement and will have formed a view about how a settlement can be achieved. Of course, there will be some cases that cannot be settled at this stage, but are they the exception rather than the rule?

Mediation vs JSM

In a personal injury multi-track action, the court typically issues two pages of case management directions. At the end of the second page, just before the direction in respect of the trial window, the court might direct the parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”). For solicitors this generally means a joint settlement meeting (“JSM”). But a JSM is hardly an alternative method of dispute resolution. The insurer and the claimant do not meet. They sit in separate rooms, each with their own solicitor while learned counsel battle it out in another room. A JSM is equivalent to court corridor negotiation without the pressure of an impending trial. Its success depends on the reasonableness of counsel for the parties. The parties themselves are not directly involved in the negotiations, merely receiving reports from counsel as the negotiations continue. The whole focus of the negotiations is upon counsel, who will often feel that conceding anything more than minor points or small amounts will be construed by the other as a weakness; the adversarial system is close to the heart of all litigation lawyers.

Section A of the Questionnaire refers to “a more formal process such as mediation”. Whoever drafted the Allocation Questionnaire had clearly never experienced a mediation, for a mediation is far less formal than a JSM. For a start, the parties, rather than counsel, are at the very centre of the mediation process. They should be; it is after all their case. In a personal injury claim, the claimant can speak directly to the defendant’s insurer. It is an opportunity for the claimant to make a real impression upon the insurer, who will be writing the cheque, in a way that is not possible at a JSM. This is particularly valuable where the insurer has reservations about the veracity of an aspect of the claim; what better moment could there be for the claimant to address those reservations?

Where the parties are so far apart that resolution by any method other than a trial seems unlikely, a mediation is preferable to a JSM. This is because it enables the mediator to explore, confidentially, how far each party is prepared to go to reach a settlement which,

January 2017

Mediation Focus

How many insurers reading this article have been contacted by a panel solicitor to discuss ‘the need to try to settle’? if done by a party’s counsel at a JSM, would be regarded by the other counsel as a sign of weakness. If there are weaknesses in a party’s evidence, it is far preferable to try and persuade the other party at a mediation rather than try to persuade a judge at trial.

Importantly, a mediation can be held at any time without the necessity of trawling, at great expense, through pages of case management directions to a JSM. With all the pre-litigation information and evidence required from the claimant and with an insurer who has drawn upon its experience to place a reserve upon the claim from the very outset, it is perfectly possible to reach a settlement without the large volume of evidence that might be required to convince a judge at trial.

Mediation is a voluntary and informal process: claimants’ solicitors should regard a mediation as an opportunity, rather than a ploy by the defendant to in some way take advantage of the claimant.

The mediator is not a judge - the mediator does not decide the outcome; the parties remain in control throughout and unlike a multi-track trial, costs can be agreed at a mediation.

Whatever sanction may have been contemplated in 1999 for not engaging in ADR, the case of Halsey v Milton Keynes NHS Trust in 2004 provided sufficient justification for those who refused to mediate to avoid a sanction. It was not until PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd in 2013 that the judiciary made it clear that a party who refuses or ignores an offer to mediate does so at its peril, running the risk of a costs sanction being imposed upon it.

Notwithstanding this decision and the expansion (also in 2013) of the overriding objective to include dealing with cases at “proportionate cost”, mediation remained on the periphery in personal injury cases and the anecdotal evidence is that there it remains.

The mediator does not decide the outcome. The parties remain in control throughout

Why this apparent reluctance to mediate?

A cynic would say that it is not difficult to see why: defendant litigation lawyers make money from defending. The Directions Questionnaire is completed when the case has only just begun.

There is the opportunity ahead for chargeable work. Of course, the solicitor will think about settlement; it is common knowledge that most cases do settle. Early settlement may be good for the insurers but does nothing for the solicitor’s fee income. So “not yet”. Anyway, when the solicitor does think about settlement, mediation won’t be top of the agenda – “it’s just an added expense” is a typical objection to a mediation. But is it? Unlike a JSM, counsel is not required. Counsel is primarily an advocate.

Advocacy skills are not required at a mediation. A defendant’s solicitor who has day-to-day conduct of the case should be perfectly able to deal with a mediation. The skills claimed by the solicitor’s internet profile and by the solicitor’s firm in its tender documents submitted to insurers are more than adequate for a mediation. For the solicitor, there will be the added bonus of the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with the insurer’s representative. If the mediation is successful (as the vast majority are), imagine the scene the following day in the insurer’s open plan office: “I was at a mediation with solicitor AB yesterday – it’s the first time I’ve been to a mediation. It was interesting and we settled the case. I thought AB handled the mediation really well”. Is that not a better way for the solicitor to cement the relationship with the insurer than attending a JSM and doing little of value because counsel is dealing with the case? Rest assured, the compliments paid to AB will be heard and remembered by colleagues in the insurer’s claims department.

It is understandable that a claimant’s solicitor may wish to have counsel at the mediation to provide re-assurance to the claimant, but the saving in the cost of the defendant’s counsel will cover the cost of the mediator.

It is therefore surprising that in the field of personal injury claims, largely funded by insurers who pay not just the claimant’s damages but also the claimant’s costs and the fees of their own solicitors, insurers are not more pro-active in driving mediation.

As Lord Justice Ward said in Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd, “Mediation is a perfectly proper adjunct to litigation. The skills are now well developed. The results are astonishingly good. Try it more often”.

Mark Field is a solicitor and mediator (www.markfieldmediation.co.uk) who has worked both in private practice and for an insurer (in an open plan office). He has extensive experience of mediation, both as a party’s representative and as a mediator.

January 2017

Modern Claims 45

FEATURES

Connected Claims Europe – The consensus on the future of claims On 28th-29th September 2016, claims professionals from across Europe gathered at the Grange Tower Bridge Hotel for the Insurance Nexus Connected Claims Europe summit. Brendan Gurrie reports on how one session revealed that many of the challenges and opportunities facing the UK claims sector are also set to impact on the insurance industry throughout the continent. ecause much of the focus of the British insurance industry is on developments brought about by our own government, there is always a danger of overlooking what is happening elsewhere in the world. That’s why Connected Claims Europe, which attracted delegates from across the UK and Europe, was a great opportunity to examine the current issues and opportunities affecting international insurance markets.

B

Speakers from some of the largest insurers in the world, including Zurich, Swiss Re and Generali presented wide perspectives on the market, but it was one of the shorter sessions that provided some of the most interesting insights. This was the live polling session, during which delegates were asked a series of questions that they responded to via their phones, generating a word cloud that revealed the most popular answers.

The polling demonstrated a consensus among delegates on their predictions for the future of the industry, and it was eye-opening to discover that many of the challenges facing the market in the UK are universal across Europe. The session was overseen by the conference Chairman, Eddie Longworth, Managing Director, JEL Consulting, and the polling results showcased what insurers throughout Europe will focus on in the future.

Embracing technology and facing challenges

When asked what they hoped to take away from the event, “fresh” and “innovative ideas” were among the largest, hence the most frequently answered, words on the screen, and Longworth agreed, stating, “we will need to experiment as an industry”.

Delegates were given the chance to elaborate on this with the next question, “what technology will be the most significant to claims going forward?” Among the most common answers were telematics and automation, but blockchain was also touted as a significant technology. One of the biggest risks to any company today is the threat of data leaks. Whether as a result of employee error, cybercrime, or a combination of the two, mismanagement of data can cause damages to the workflow, finances and reputation of a business and its clients. Blockchain systems allow for the secure sharing of data between the numerous parties involved in a claim, and as cyber attack stories have started to become a daily occurrence, blockchain is a potential data safeguard, and something that you can expect to be in the spotlight soon.

When data is secure, correct usage can be of enormous benefit to the industry, so it was not a surprise that data analytics was also a popular answer to this question. It’s common knowledge that data can provide useful information on potential risk, ultimately improving business for insurers and safety for policyholders.

Longworth commented that although the data exists, “it doesn’t necessarily mean we can bring it together in the right place, and

46 Modern Claims

The polling demonstrated a consensus among delegates on their predictions for the future of the industry, and it was eye-opening to discover that many of the challenges facing the market in the UK are universal across Europe in such a form that we can use it”, and so it is important to identify how best to analyse and harness this data.

The disruptor discussion

Delegates were posed the question, “what will be the biggest disruption for claims in the next five years?” The majority of delegates felt autonomous vehicles would create the biggest disruption, and given predictions that self-driving cars could be on the road by 2021, despite the many questions that still need to be answered, this is something that claims professionals across Europe need to prepare for.

Another frequent answer to the question was telematics. Though telematics has become rather commonplace in motor policies for young drivers, its full potential may not have been realised yet. Longworth asked whether telematics can be used “more constructively in the claims side, as opposed to the pricing and underwriting side”, and given the possible applications of it for older drivers, fleets, and in different kinds of vehicles, and the fact that the delegates saw it as one of the biggest disruptors of the next five years, the answer is a definite yes.

The final question of the poll was, “what area of claims would you like to know more about?” The answers were by far the most varied of the session, and included areas such as artificial intelligence, operating models and customer satisfaction.

Longworth remarked that “there isn’t a lot missing” and the number and range of responses to the question made it clear that the delegates expected a great deal of change in insurance in the next few years. Longworth concluded the session, stating that “because there’s a lot to do, that also gives a lot of opportunity”.

He finished by stressing the importance of understanding what the future of claims holds, remarking that “the more you can get ahead in the game, the more likely you are to end up a winner”.

Brendan Gurrie is the Editor of Modern Claims Magazine.

January 2017

We keep your promises and deliver the claims service that your customers expect With 30 years experience in outsourced claims management and assistance services we know how to take care of your customers when it really matters.

Motor ▪ Health ▪ Property ▪ Financial Loss ▪ Legal Expenses Solutions ▪ Commercial

H Koch print:Layout 1 10/24/16 10:27 AM Page 1

Hugh Koch has written a brilliant guide to reducing the uncertainty, speculation and ambiguity that many personal injury and medical negligence events contain, so that judgments and decisions may be made with the contribution of valid psychological evidence.

The book is written in easily accessible language, with clear steps and frameworks, that illuminate the processes for creating clarity from uncertainty and speculation. The book has wider applications beyond the confines of the legal processes described, and should be of immense value to psychologists and lawyers alike. Derek Mowbray

Pre Order your copy by emailing info@expertwitness.co.uk

Get in touch with us on: 0333 241 9580 sales@motorplus.co.uk motorplus.co.uk

FEATURES

Sector Soapbox

Modern Claims’s panel of resident associations outline the burning issues

Consumers deserve to be protected from cold calling here have been several recent and welcome initiatives aimed at tackling the problem of cold calling. Action and publicity to encourage higher levels of reporting of colds calls can only contribute to improved investigation and enforcement by the regulators. Equally, higher and more robust fines, targeted at individuals rather than companies, may put some of the worst offenders out of business and deter others.

Cold calls are at the root of many of the sector’s problems. They have encouraged more claims than there would otherwise have been, resulting in one of the Government’s main arguments for its proposed changes to the claims process. Suspiciously sourced claims are more likely to be fraudulent or exaggerated. The daily assault of cold calls and texts faced by many people has contributed to the poor reputation of the sector amongst the general public.

MASS, along with other representative bodies in the sector, have long called for a complete ban on unsolicited cold calls and texts.

Our hope is that once the Financial Conduct Authority takes full responsibility for the regulation of CMCs around April 2018, it has the political support to use its greater powers to completely ban cold calls in personal injury, as it has done in pension selling and mortgage broking. If it can be done in some areas of financial services, it can be done in PI once CMCs fall within its regulatory umbrella.

T

However, we recognise that even if a ban was implemented, nuisance calls, perhaps the majority, would still be made from unregulated, illegal outfits, either here or offshore. A further issue is a crooked practice that takes place beneath the surface.

Personal data used for cold calls is mined, sold and re-sold by a variety of organisations across the personal injury sector. CMCs are not alone in this practice. Insurers, price comparison websites, garages, car hire companies, towing companies and marketing/ survey companies must all be held accountable.

So too must solicitors. We have long been banned from making unsolicited texts and calls, but clearly there are some who are either negligent or wilfully failing to carry out due diligence to ensure that a claim is genuine and that the lead comes from a legitimate and reputable source. The SRA, professional and representative bodies and individual firms and solicitors must all play their role, reporting those who introduce bad leads or punishing those who recklessly pursue suspect leads. It is long overdue, but it really is time to protect consumers and their data from this insidious practice.

Simon Stanfield, Chair of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society (MASS) and a Partner of Simpson Millar.

Under-Insurance – A Client’s Worst Nightmare! om a client’s point of view, one of the worst experiences in relation to insurance, aside from a policy not responding at all, is to have the policy respond and the claim settlement be reduced as a result of under-insurance.

The Industry Claims Initiative, which I Chair on behalf of BIBA, is made up of representatives from all areas of the market, including ABI, Insurers, Brokers, CILA and other stakeholders in claims. We last met in October and the issue of trying to educate customers into avoiding under-insurance is still on our agenda, and has been since the Thematic Review on Commercial Claims (TR15/6) was published by the FCA in May 2015.

The review itself was limited in the scope of investigation into the SME market, but outlined the impact that under-insurance can have on small firms. The findings were wide ranging, but the issue of under-insurance was extremely prominent within the investigations, identifying the dissatisfaction of smaller firms who had experienced the problem.

The work that the Industry Claims Initiative is doing in this area is extremely important and mirrors BIBA’s continued manifesto pledge to try to avoid this problem. It has resulted in the publication of a guide for small and medium sized businesses entitled “How to Avoid Under-Insurance”. The guide has been produced by BIBA but sponsored by Chubb, Hiscox and CILA, the FSB, Airmic, the ABI and Flaxmans, and it contains practical information on how businesses can avoid under-insuring various risks and underlines the industrywide approach to solving the problem.

F

48 Modern Claims

Our Group identified that the problem continues in setting sums insured for buildings and contents, with only a handful of professional valuations commissioned in order to set accurate contents sums insured.

In relation to business interruption, some 40% of businesses do not have enough business interruption cover to get them back on their feet, and 25% of SME claims reviewed by the FCA in this area had an indemnity period which expired before the business had returned to an acceptable trading position. Establishing this at the time of the claim could have devastating consequences. There is a growing call in the industry for a standard minimum indemnity period of 24 months to be provided to address this situation, at least in part.

There seems to be a concentration of coverage in relation to sums insured on property related insurance, but under-insurance can occur equally in employer’s liability, professional indemnity and public liability insurances; this should not be overlooked and will be the next stage of the education process.

Copies of the current guide can be obtained through all BIBA members https://www.biba.org.uk/find-insurance/ and whilst the ultimate responsibility of setting a sum insured rests with a client, it is important that the industry continues to educate businesses in this area in order to mitigate both the Regulator requirement and improve customer satisfaction at the point of the claim.

Andrew Gibbons, ACII, Managing Director, Mason Owen Financial Services Ltd and Chair on behalf of BIBA of the Industry Claims Working Group.

January 2017

FEATURES

Looking Across to Ireland t a time when everyone in the motor industry in England & Wales is consumed with the whiplash consultation, it’s worth casting an eye at developments in Ireland....

Since January 2011, the cost of motor insurance has increased 66% according to the Central Statistics Office, well beyond EU trends. Against that backdrop and with household budgets tight, the Cost of Insurance Working Group was established in July 2016 to examine the key drivers for the cost of premiums and recommend measures to address them.

The reasons behind the increase are familiar, including ever higher court awards, high legal costs and increased fraud. In addition, the collapse of Quinn Insurance led to a 2% levy on motor premiums and the failure of Setanta could add €45 onto the cost of each policy if the MIBI’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to fix it with liability to meet the remaining claims is unsuccessful.

Led by Minister for State, Eoghan Murphy TD, the Group published recommendations on 21 November, and they provide a good illustration of the varied nature of the issues to be addressed if the cost of motor insurance is to be brought under control. There are 41 recommendations in total, falling into nine distinct areas, including protecting the consumer, providing transparency of the claims environment and reducing costs in the claims process.

The level of injury awards in Ireland and particularly awards for whiplash averaging around €15,000 are out of step with other jurisdictions. To address this problem, the Group has suggested

A

the formation of a “Personal Injuries Commission” addressing how individuals are compensated in other jurisdictions, including ‘care not cash’ compensation models and the preparation of medical reports in personal injury claims.

One of the key challenges facing insurers attempting to detect and fight increased fraud in Ireland is the lack of claims data, and a reluctance to share that data due to Data Protection Legislation.

It is to be welcomed then, that the Working Group is recommending the establishment of a National Claims Statistics Database which will capture claims data on personal injury and property damage, and a fully functioning integrated fraud database to detect patterns of fraud.

Still, there are a number of areas such as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and s26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, where the system in Ireland is ahead of the UK. These need supporting and strengthening, as there is still a reluctance by the Court to apply s26 and dismiss exaggerated claims.

The Working Group has indicated they will provide their final report in December, and it will be interesting to see then which recommendations the government suggests adopting and how it proposes to take the work forward.

Nigel Teasdale, President of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) and Partner at DWF.

Looking ahead I

n between eating mince pies and buying stocking-fillers, Christmas is normally a time for taking stock of the year’s achievements and planning the year ahead.

This year, however, the ABI has been busy responding to the Government’s consultation on civil justice reform and also considering the implications of the Justice Secretary’s recent announcement on the Discount Rate. Clearly, the outcome of both will affect the motor insurance industry for a long time to come.

Tackling the problems associated with whiplash once and for all would allow insurers to focus on providing an efficient service to their customers and adapting as technology evolves to make drivers safer and better connected.

Therefore, one of our key priorities for 2017 will be understanding the implications of the Modern Transport Bill, which we expect to see introduced into Parliament during the first quarter of the year. All drivers, not just those who plan to be the early adopters of automated driving technology, will benefit from a system that clarifies who has responsibility for ensuring appropriate insurance is in place.

The certainty this legislation provides will allow insurers to begin preparing for when these cars start appearing on the road.

January 2017

It is clear that one of the most challenging questions will be ensuring all those who need it are able to access vehicle data in an accessible form. In 2017, our focus will be ensuring that insurers understand the capability of individual vehicles in order to accurately assess the risk they pose to road users.

Of course, the other significant challenge for the insurance industry is understanding the implications of the EU referendum result. The ABI has identified the key priorities for the industry, which include maintaining access to EU markets and the ability to attract talented staff into the UK. For motor insurers, we want to make sure drivers aren’t burdened with unnecessary checks when crossing the border into an EU member state. As part of this, the ABI will continue to seek a workable solution to the issue raised by the ECJ’s Vnuk judgement, where we hope the European Commission will now take forward the proportionate approach identified in its impact assessment published earlier in 2016.

The UK’s motor insurance market remains highly competitive and our overall objective remains what it always has been: making sure consumers can find the best policy to meet their needs at a competitive price.

Ben Howarth, Senior Policy Adviser, Motor & Liability, Association of British Insurers (ABI).

Modern Claims 49

FEATURES

Thinking outside the box – Telematics comes of Age Charlotte Halkett looks at the challenges that had to be overcome in gaining acceptance for telematics, how they have disrupted and transformed insurance since, and how telematics will adapt and evolve in the future. oday, the UK telematics insurance market is one of the two most mature UBI markets in Europe. In March 2016 it was reported that there were 455,000 live telematics policies in the UK - a significant increase from the 323,000 live policies in December 2014. Furthermore, Berg Insight has estimated that with an annual growth rate of 37.2%, the number of active insurance telematics policies in Europe is estimated to reach 25.8 million by 2020.

T

It’s a far cry from 2008, when the idea of starting Insure The Box was still just an idea. At the time, the motor insurance market had been making losses for years; others had dipped their toe in telematics waters and got scolded, and there was generally little faith in the concept; surely no-one would ever agree to have their driving monitored, would they?

But at Insure The Box, we felt the initial difficulties were surmountable; after all, if insurers in the US and Italy could do it, why couldn’t we? It wasn’t going to be easy. It’s still not an easy business to be in by any stretch of the imagination, and we have needed to innovate every step of the way, but we could see the possibilities offered by telematics. Our goal was to improve young driver safety, personalise and enrich the customer experience, reduce claims losses and create a better performing book of business through enhanced underwriting performance.

More than six years on from the launch in 2010 and the accumulation of over 3 billion miles of driving data and associated claims, Insure The Box is now the custodian of the largest volume of driving data for insurance in the UK, and one of the most significant driving datasets in the world.

What we are able to do with this data is obviously what makes the real difference. At Insure The Box we believe our moral duty is aligned with our customers’ interests and also directly aligned with good business: helping to reduce accidents on the road. We calculate the individual risk of a customer having an accident and give feedback and incentives for drivers to improve. The power of this data in underwriting, claims and customer engagement is becoming increasingly evident as we quantify key risks and identify new ways to help our customers.

One example of a key risk we work to reduce is speeding. Actuarial analysis of our telematics data has identified the nature of the correlation between speeding and accident rates. For example, we see that drivers who speed 20% of the time increase their risk of having an accident by 87%. Valuable insights such as these are helping us to identify habitual speeders and communicate

50 Modern Claims

The data produced by telematics provides valuable insights that can be used for future development, and the wealth of data means we can continue to tailor products to the customer’s exact needs effectively with them. We have already reduced accident rates for this very high-risk group by 15%.

Another example of how our telematics data is helping us to reduce accident rates is our work around the Autumn clock change. Insure The Box analysis showed the risk of having an accident in the evening rush hour increases by 30% immediately after the clocks go back, as customers may find themselves taking journeys in the dark that were previously in the daylight. After discovering this link, we set up processes to help customers in a timely manner. We proactively contacted customers around the time of the clock change to give them advice about how best to avoid accidents, as well as adding messages to customer portals warning of the increased danger. We also engaged with the press and placed content on our websites to inform the wider driving public of our findings.

At the claims stage, the telematics insights help to process claims more efficiently. The knowledge gained from this vast pool of data is used to ensure genuine claims are paid while fraudulent claims can be spotted more efficiently and dealt with appropriately.

Telematics data is also regularly used to ensure that our repair networks nationwide are correctly employed on incidents.

One of the most compelling benefits of telematics policies for inexperienced drivers is our Accident Alert. Being able to know immediately when a customer has had a serious accident, as well as the precise circumstances of the crash, enables us to take informed, appropriate action to assist. In the most serious cases we’ll even call the emergency services; on average we called emergency services directly 16 times a month during 2016. We have dealt with over 100,000 Accident Alerts since launch, and we continuously use the detail of claim end-results to improve

January 2017

FEATURES

Analysis showed the risk of having an accident in the evening rush hour increases by 30% immediately after the clocks go back, as customers may find themselves taking journeys in the dark that were previously in the daylight our Alert understanding, meaning we are becoming even better at this first response. What’s really important to note is that over half of our alerts are dealt with by our out-of-hours teams, i.e. at times where most insurance claims centres are closed and when customers are most in need of assistance. We have had incidents where, had it not been for Accident Alert, our customer may have died, so we are proud to say that our technology is saving lives.

This instant notification of an accident also limits the opportunity for fraud, as the exact details of the incident are recorded automatically. Telematics data is a powerful tool in claims investigations and, supported by our bespoke mapping tool, developed entirely in-house, it enables us to see the movement of our customer’s vehicle at the time and place of the alleged incident. The success of this tool is evident in the number of legal claims cases we are successfully defending and defeating, as well as prestigious industry awards we have won. It puts us in a ‘winwin’ situation where both we and the customer are benefiting from a more efficient claims process.

We see that drivers who speed 20% of the time increase their risk of having an accident by 87%

insurance will evolve as more vehicles become connected and personalisation through data will become fundamental in ever more parts of our lives. Our close links with the automotive industry, and specifically Toyota, means that we will be involved in autonomous cars and new mobility solutions, using our knowledge of real-time customer interactions and driving behaviours.

With the expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT) comes the explosion of data volume and diversity, with a resulting potential for product innovation. Telematics is a real working example of this today. There are challenges, but the benefits of this Big Data environment are vast and exciting. The data produced by telematics provides valuable insights that can be used for future development, and the wealth of data means we can continue to tailor products to the customer’s exact needs. For example, if a customer’s daily commute takes them through a known-accident location, we might be able to warn them, thus reducing the risk of an accident. These sorts of personal insurance insights will take us to new areas for both insurance providers and consumers. We believe this is the next phase of using real-time information in a Big Data environment and it’s an exciting time for telematics as we approach the day it becomes mainstream. The potential is huge.

Charlotte Halkett is General Manager Communications for Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Europe (ANDIE). Charlotte was one of the original start-up team of Insure The Box, a leading UK telematics insurance provider and now part of the ANDIE group.

Public awareness of telematics has risen sharply since our launch over six years ago, as evidenced by the increasing volume of sales and diversity of telematics products available. We have also seen a shift in general attitude towards the technology, where benefits for consumers are better understood and case examples of great customer service can be seen. From the outset, we have put a great deal of effort into raising awareness of the safety benefits of telematics: we constantly engage with customers to promote road safety messages (via their online portal, social media, direct customer communications). We have a dedicated Road Safety Manager, who represents us as an active member of PACTS (The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety) and we sponsor a range of Road Safety initiatives and conferences. Our company mission statement draws on “making our roads safer and saving lives”, thus Road Safety is a fundamental part of everything we do.

Since our launch in 2010 we have now sold over 700,000 policies, collated a huge 3 Billion miles of data with all associated claims, and our volumes continue to rise. Looking to the future, telematics

January 2017

Modern Claims 51

ISSUE 27 December 2016 ISSN 2050-5744

THE BUSINESS

OF LAW

HAVE YOU SEEN OUR SISTER PUBLICATION? To arrange your free subscription please email liam@charltongrant.co.uk

ND RICHARD SUSSKI rous t imagine a prospe in the 2020s, I canno ” “When we are firmly not embracing some form of AI. legal business Sponsored by Supported by

www.modernlawmagazine.co.uk Have you seen Half Page Ads NEW LOOK.indd 1

08/02/2017 12:33

2016 10 Rebmark Ad v3 paths.indd 1

10/10/2016 14:20

CASE STUDIES

Eclipse’s Proclaim Case Management solution implemented at Personal Injury expert, Brooklands Solicitors Brooklands Solicitors, a law firm specialising in Personal Injury, has chosen to implement the Law Society Endorsed Proclaim Case Management Software solution from Eclipse Legal Systems. he Bolton-based firm represents clients nationally, recovering compensation for all types of Personal Injury claims from road traffic accidents (RTA) and slips, trips and falls through to accidents at work. The practice has gained an excellent reputation by ensuring its clients receive an individually tailored service, provided by its highly experienced and understanding team of solicitors.

T

Darren Gower

As the Personal Injury sector is renowned for heavy document production, Brooklands decided to implement a Proclaim Personal Injury Case Management system to increase productivity and cope with an expanding volume of cases. The desktop application will provide fee earners with all the necessary precedent letters, produced at the click of a button, saving hours of administration time and enabling staff to concentrate on client relationships.

Taking this further, Eclipse’s Task Server tool will automate a number of regular tasks, carrying out the time-consuming yet vital administrative chores. Brooklands will be able to rely upon the Task Server to alert the team as necessary to ensure actions are never overlooked.

Furthermore, a key business driver for the practice was to have the ability to process RTA claims entirely through the Proclaim desktop.

Thanks to Eclipse’s integration with the MoJ’s Claims Portal, fee earners will have 2-way access via the ‘Application-to-Application’ technology, providing clients with a fast and proactive service.

Zeeshan Muneer, Director at Brooklands Solicitors, comments: “By implementing Proclaim, we are providing ourselves with a solid platform for development and growth which is something we are committed to doing within the rapidly changing legal landscape.

We will now be able to streamline our processes efficiently which will enable us to focus solely on our clients, rather than labourintensive administrative tasks.

“In summation, Proclaim will help us to maintain our ability to deliver exceptional results and exceed client expectations.”

For further information, please contact Darren Gower, Marketing Director at Eclipse Legal Systems, part of Capita plc, via darren.gower@eclipselegal. co.uk or call 01274 704100. Alternatively, visit www.eclipselegal.co.uk

Gocompare.com Facilitates Early Fraud Detection Gocompare.com recognized a clear opportunity to better serve its insurance partners by implementing iovation’s device recognition technology at point-of-quote. While Gocompare. com will not make a decision on behalf of their many partners about fraud, they can now offer a service to automatically block devices recognized for past fraudulent behavior and high-risk applicants.

G

“When we were considering how to bolster our fraud detection and prevention capabilities, iovation’s technical sophistication, ease of use, and speed of implementation were of paramount importance,” says Jon Morrell, former CEO of Gocompare.com.

“Together, we have created an antifraud system that works within the PCW model where huge volumes of quotes are processed at high speed by numerous parties, and requires no additional implementation for our insurance partners.”

For insurance partners who are also iovation subscribers, Gocompare. com delivers even more value. By using the insurer’s device blacklist, Gocompare.com can prevent that partner from appearing on search queries made by banned devices. The same is true for blacklisted proxies, IP addresses, and dozens of other variables.

Gocompare.com automatically recognizes and denies devices attempting to collect a high volume of quotes. When devices have been recognized as repeatedly misusing the website, Gocompare. com simply shuts out the device permanently.

Since May 2015, iovation has enabled Gocompare.com to block thousands of fraudulent quote requests from obtaining quotes and policies from their insurance partners.

“Data sharing is the biggest thing that’s going to help the insurance industry fight fraud,” says Cassell. “When different partners add evidence to iovation’s device intelligence network, the total result is more visibility into larger fraud rings than any one partner might uncover alone. Even evidence coming from users in other industries helps. iovation’s unique device ID makes it easy for everyone in the network to unite against fraud. That isn’t the case with other products in the device recognition space.”

“We’re proud to be blazing a trail in the comparison website sector,” says Morrell. “Our solution has been proven to identify fraud well before an insurer or broker is able to, and has yielded results that will reduce fraud significantly in a short space of time.”

Tristan Prince is a Device Risk, Fraud & Authentication Specialist for iovation. For more information, visit https://www.iovation.com/promotions/ industries-insurance

“For existing iovation clients, we can take on some of the fraud work at the point of quote that they’d otherwise be doing at the back end. We stop them from quoting to known bad devices,” says Dan Cassell, Fraud Consultant at Gocompare.com.

January 2017

Modern Claims 53

10 MINUTES WITH

Jason Tripp Q A

Has the industry changed drastically since you started working in it?

I began working in the motor claims industry in the late 1990s, and there has been a lot of change in that time. Three areas stand out: the degree of financial services regulation, a trend towards consolidation and the increasing sophistication of the customer.

The degree of regulation now is incredibly different to twenty, or even ten years ago. At Motorplus we create insurance schemes with authority from UK General Insurance, and handle claims for both our own products and other insurers schemes. The key thing in everything we do is the customer, which blends easily with the FCA’s customer focus. I think many companies in our industry have embraced this movement, as indeed has Motorplus, but there are still those who will face difficulties if they don’t recognise what needs to change and make it happen.

I have seen a lot of consolidation through acquisitions and mergers, or companies moving away from claims management, which has led to fewer businesses in the market, but with increasing competition. This competition between the main providers has been intensified by the trend towards outsourcing claims management, which of course has meant more focus on cost control, pricing and therefore value for money.

The customer knows their rights and expects a first class service.

If they’re not satisfied, they will complain and ultimately vote with their feet! This wasn’t always the way, and some time ago, firms could get away with poor service. But this has definitely changed for the better, and increasingly savvy customers drive up quality.

In all, I think these changes have lead to a higher degree of professionalism in claims management, as firms cannot afford to lose sight of customer needs and quality of service, in order to remain successful in a competitive environment.

Q A

What has been the key positive or negative impact of change in your area of the market?

Certainly, competition is driving up standards of professionalism in claims handling providers. That, coupled with the FCA’s more interventionist approach to regulation recently has had a positive effect for the customer, on the whole.

For example, one of the principles of Treating Customers Fairly is that products must perform in a way that the policyholder expects; this is never more relevant than at the point of making a claim. It’s our role to ensure that the promise of protection, made by the broker or insurer when they sell a policy, is followed through to the letter when that policyholder needs assistance.

The connection between the insurance scheme originator, the retailer and the claims handler must be very close to ensure the service is delivered as intended and meets with the customers’ expectations.

Firms cannot afford to lose sight of customer needs and quality of service, in order to remain successful in a competitive environment

Q A

Who inspires you and why?

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors and founder of SolarCity.

He’s blazing a trail for using cutting edge technological innovation to tackle real world problems like global warming and the diminishing supply of fossil fuels, and in ways that no-one else seems to be. He has inspired many people to get behind his ideas, rallying investors and customers alike.

Q A

Have you had/got a mentor? If so, what was the most valuable piece of advice they gave you?

Early in my career I worked for Michael Symons at Helphire.

He was one of a small group of people, who independently and separately created the credit hire model. We talk about market disruption a great deal these days, but that is exactly what Michael did 25 years ago when he intervened in the motor accident claims industry.

Putting the customer first, he brought a brand new mobility solution to motorists who, at the time, were not well looked after by their motor insurer.

As Helphire grew, I was recruited by and worked for Michael, developing new ideas and products. He was a real visionary. After Helphire he started a new legal expense insurance venture and started the disruption all over again. What I learned from working with Michael was the value of innovation and how to turn ideas into reality.

Q A

If you were not in your current position, what would you be doing?

Outside of work, one of my passions is Jiu jitsu. When the time comes to wind down my professional career I could see myself teaching martial arts. It’s very rewarding, teaching something you love and seeing the positive impact it has on another person’s life. I really identify with the ethos of martial arts, put in effort, work hard and see the results as you improve.

Jason Tripp is Operations Director at Motorplus.

SAVE THE DATE Doctors Chambers Modern Claims Conference Tuesday 23rd May 2017 Etihad Stadium, Manchester

Doctors Chambers Modern Claims Awards Thursday 27th April 2017 New Dock Hall, Leeds CONTACT

Event enquiries | ellie.campbell@charltongrant.co.uk | 01765 600909 Sponsorship enquiries | kate@charltongrant.co.uk | 01765 600909

54 Modern Claims

January 2017

Finding the right outsourced claims management provider just got easier

Industry leading claims management… direct from solicitors.

As one of the most experienced organisations in outsourced claims handling, our focus is on innovation, efficiency and process development. This - coupled with our deep knowledge of the personal injury market - means we deliver the highest level on-shore customer experience for all claim types.

• Innovative solutions

• Process development expertise

• A focussed, end-to-end customer journey • Proven, post-LASPO model

• FNOL, Portal, out-of-Portal, litigation and multi-track claims

To find out how we can help you, call 0800 038 0758 www.simpsonmillar.co.uk

Simpson Millar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales: No. OC313936.

Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Registration number 424940.

Wondering how to profit in the new era of PI? The Personal Injury sector has changed – to compete, you have to use the very best Case Management system.

Proclaim is the UK’s leading Case Management software solution, in use by 23,000 professionals. Proclaim maximises efficiencies, cuts costs and enables you to provide a superb service experience.

3 3 3 3 3 3

Portal-ready for RTA and EL/PL claims Automates procedures and document production Manages your full range of claim types ABS-ready – manages everything through one system Provides instant online services for clients and customers Integrates with business partners

Get the competitive edge

Call 01274 704 100

visit eclipselegal.co.uk or email info@eclipselegal.co.uk