Supreme Court Win for Edmondson Solicitors

In a recent Supreme Court Ruling  in favour of Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Vs Haven, the Supreme Court ordered £12,000 in cost recovery to Edmondson Solicitors. The case made headline news as it could possibly set the president for claim solicitors seeking compensation from insurers whom choose to settle with claimants directly. At the core of the issue Edmondson complained that they were left out of the claims process despite signed CFA’s. According to the report claims were settled via the RTA portal, leaving solicitors out of the loop. They did not gain their fair share of the injury cost or injury claim recovery costs, in this case 6 claims in total. Lord Briggs said “The very essence of a CFA is that the solicitor and client have agreed that the solicitor will be entitled to charges if the case is won. Recovery of those charges from the fruits of the litigation is a central feature of the RTA protocol.”

Beyond this, the Law Society generally encourages personal injury firms who have experienced anything similar to take action.  Haven insurers stand by their view that they were simply providing good service to customers. To read more about this case, go to Insurer in Hot Water after allegedly Settling Compensation Claims Deliberately. The Supreme Court did not judge Haven in a negative light and it is stated that “claimants received the compensation to which they were entitled.”

The Battle Over Injury Cost: Did Haven Insurers Have a Point?

Haven Insurers may have a slight point in their argument during this controversial case. Direct settlement certainly speeds up the process considerably, which in turn drives customer satisfaction. It is possible though that they might be overstepping their role in the process. In other words, insurers are not necessarily qualified to do the work of the personal injury firms. This is even if the claim process appears simple and straightforward. By doing so, they take away the benefits and injury claim recovery costs that personal injury firms have worked so hard to gain through their experience.

Beyond the Supreme Court: Many Actors, Many Interests

At the end of the day, there will be many actors and therefore many interests on all sides. In these situations, the actors usually include the claimants, the insurers, and the personal injury firms.

Some actors may lose and some may win. The question is, are some actors more important than others? Do injured clients take preference over those providing the services such as insurers or solicitors?  Does this negatively affect the service providers in some cases actually undermine the work they do? Lastly, what injury claim or injury cost system could be beneficial to all and does this system actually exist?

Your perspective on the Supreme Court case and many cases to yet occur may be based on who you are. This is whether you are an insurer, client or solicitor. Although, it is important to remember that no individual or firm will continue taking part in a system where the benefits do not outweigh the costs when it comes to their own interests. To satisfy your own interests use our injury claims services.

This site uses cookies: Find out more.