Legal expense insurers cannot use cost as the sole basis for refusing to underwrite fees for policyholders who use non-panel solicitors, the High Court has ruled.
The decision was handed down by Mr Justice Burton last week following a hearing earlier this month in a case brought by Holborn firm Webster Dixon against Lloyd’s of London insurer Equity Red Star and ULR Norwich.
Webster Dixon instructed Colin Wynter QC of Devereux Chambers to lead Thomas Cordrey of the same set for the claimants while Horwich Cohen Coghlan instructed Kings Chambers’ Dr Mark Friston for the defendants.
The claim was launched by three policyholders who had instructed Webster Dixon with the agreement that their fees would be paid using the before-the-event (BTE) insurance they had in place. However, the underwriters of those policies refused to pay the rates because the policyholders had not used lawyers from the underwriters’ legal expense panels.
Ruling, Burton J held that insurers cannot reject policyholders’ choice of solicitor on the basis of price alone.
“The correct approach is […] to conclude that the choice of his own lawyer by an insured shall not of itself constitute the taking of an unreasonable step,” the judge said.
Nevertheless, he added, it was “inevitable and right” that the reasonableness of the fees charged by non-panel members was comparable with those charged by panel members.
The insurer would also need to consider the specialism of the lawyer, their location and the availability of other lawyers before rejecting the fees claim, the judge said.
Readers' comments (2)
Anonymous | 4-Nov-2011 10:13 am
One of the recommendations of the Jackson report is that the bte industry should grow to replace legal aid/cfa funding. If Rupert ever had the misfortune of attempting to navigate the rather unique practices of bte legal expenses insurers, I am sure his report would be significantly redrafted. Well done webster dixon on this small victory
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2012 2:47 pm
What a farcical decision. The insurers are paying so why can't they choose the solicitor, as long as they are competent? How can they set the premiums if they don't know what the legal spend is!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment