Motor Legal Protection (1 Viewer)

[pyro]

I'm confused.
If a lawyer is duty bound to only proceed with cases which have a 51% or greater chance of success, then the other side should not contest!?!?!?
Unless the chances add up to > 100%

Where did I say that a lawyer is duty bound to only proceed with cases which have a 51% or greater chance of success?

What I actually said was:

All lawyers are required by codes of conduct to make an assessment of their clients' prospects and to inform them accordingly.

Informing someone of their prospects and proceeding with a case are two entirely different issues. It is the client who gambles and issues the instructions, not his lawyer

I also said

What on earth is the point of gambling on any case where the outcome is predicted to be 51% against success, irrespective of the track record of the lawyer chosen?

And that is the whole point. If a client wants to proceed against a (predictably) uncertain outcome, then it is the client and not the lawyer who is gambling. Not many decent lawyers are that desperate for that sort of work. @Chris says it all in the post above

 

[Derbyshire wanderer]

Believe me, I totally share your scepticism. My viewpoint merely differs inasmuch that, without the insurance company, there can be no possibility of any claim. Which is the greater gamble?

I have sued many insurance companies over the years on behalf of clients. The dirtiest fighters have already been mentioned, Direct Line, followed by a close second, Halifax insurance



A fine company with an excellent settlement reputation. I will look into that myself

But I doubt you will get a lawyer on a no win no fee agreement ( CFA) if it requires an expensive experts report to determine if you have a case or not. The CFA would normally be backed by insurance to cover disbursements and I can't see those insurers being happy about picking up the cost of an expensive experts report in the event the case was dropped.

I say go legal expenses insurance every time and argue like hell with them to fund the report and refer to the ombudsman if they refuse .

It's only £25 or so a year after all.

I believe you are both lawyers?
That was really what I was getting at - to talk directly with the legal professionals rather than the insurer (accounting professional!) is why I would not pay for a policy that imo is better (cheaper) for them to fob off customers. I have always had sound reasoned advice from lawyers but could not say the same about insurers.
As said above regarding 'guaranteeing an argument in the event of a claim' is not something I would want to endure. I suppose my view based on personal experience is why I will only insure for what I legally have to apart from the house.

 

[pyro]

Answering only for myself, that is correct, but I specialise and no longer get actively involved with general practice save a little charitable work here and there

Insurers are not merely accountable to the claimant, but to all their other policy holders, their shareholders and all the time being under the unrelenting microscope of the statutory regulator, the FCA (the Insurance Ombudsman) etc - they walk a very fine tightrope. At the same time they get a lot of people trying to deceive them with fraudulent or otherwise mislead them (innocently) with inaccurate claims. I am not excusing their attitude, I am merely trying to understand the position they are in and to try to put it into some form of perspective.

I appreciate that you have had bad experiences with legal insurance, but I really don't know enough detail to make any comment one way or the other as to whether your need for a specialist report was sufficient to have significantly influenced your prospects of success. All I can say, by experience, is that most insurers will bend over backwards to meet a credible claim. And that is why people should choose their insurers very carefully, saving a few quid a year could be an extremely hollow economy.

Turning back to the subject matter, I have looked at that Boundless policy, which is headed LV but contracted out by them to Arc Legal Insurance, a fairly typical arrangement. There are too many exclusions for my liking, it's probably better than nothing but the limitations don't give me great cause for comfort

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Dorset Diver]

Answering only for myself, that is correct, but I specialise and no longer get actively involved with general practice save a little charitable work here and there

Insurers are not merely accountable to the claimant, but to all their other policy holders, their shareholders and all the time being under the unrelenting microscope of the statutory regulator, the FCA (the Insurance Ombudsman) etc - they walk a very fine tightrope. At the same time they get a lot of people trying to deceive them with fraudulent or otherwise mislead them (innocently) with inaccurate claims. I am not excusing their attitude, I am merely trying to understand the position they are in and to try to put it into some form of perspective.

I appreciate that you have had bad experiences with legal insurance, but I really don't know enough detail to make any comment one way or the other as to whether your need for a specialist report was sufficient to have significantly influenced your prospects of success. All I can say, by experience, is that most insurers will bend over backwards to meet a credible claim. And that is why people should choose their insurers very carefully, saving a few quid a year could be an extremely hollow economy.

Turning back to the subject matter, I have looked at that Boundless policy, which is headed LV but contracted out by them to Arc Legal Insurance, a fairly typical arrangement. There are too many exclusions for my liking, it's probably better than nothing but the limitations don't give me great cause for comfort

@pyro I suggested Boundless because the policy comes bundled with membership, it covers all the vehicles we have without the need for multiple policies, and is a bonus to the membership of the club. I agree that it has a raft of exclusions but so do most. I have never used it myself but others have said it has provided them with good service. I also agree that people should have legal cover and choose their insurer carefully but many find the terms difficult if not impossible to understand and either don't bother to read them or just don't bother with cover they are not required to have.

 

[2657]

Recommended and used by 2 lawyers on here, good enough for me.

Listen to somebody who knows the profession or the man in the pub?

 

[pyro]

@pyro I suggested Boundless because the policy comes bundled with membership, it covers all the vehicles we have without the need for multiple policies, and is a bonus to the membership of the club. I agree that it has a raft of exclusions but so do most. I have never used it myself but others have said it has provided them with good service. I also agree that people should have legal cover and choose their insurer carefully but many find the terms difficult if not impossible to understand and either don't bother to read them or just don't bother with cover they are not required to have.

Agreed, the Boundless policy is an excellent add on to what is an already worthwhile subscription. You can get slightly less restrictive policies if you go out with £25 in your pocket and buy one, but you wouldn't get all the other benefits either.

The bit that caused me to cough a little was the use of the term "positive outcome" as below:

There is a 51% or better chance that the person will win the case and achieve a positive outcome.
Examples of a positive outcome are being able to:
• recover the amount of money at stake;
• enforce a judgement;
• obtain an outcome which best serves your interest;
• recover an amount greater than that being offered by the other party.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[WhiteCheyenneMan]

Driverguardian seems the better of the two, and cheap to boot. Personally I stick legal insurance onto my vehicle policies (laziness), but I believe that some household insurance policies may include vehicle legal protection. Worth checking Barclays from what I heard (may be out of date information now, though)

Despite your reference to your "laziness", I'm getting the feeling that whilst Driverguardian may be okay, it's better to pay the higher cost of Legal Protection built into each vehicle's insurance?

 

[pyro]

Despite your reference to your "laziness", I'm getting the feeling that whilst Driverguardian may be okay, it's better to pay the higher cost of Legal Protection built into each vehicle's insurance?

Sorry, missed that post.

I'm saying that, for myself, why fix things that aren't broken. I'm not so desperate to save a few bob when I have other more important things to do. Driverguardian looks like a reasonable policy at the price

 

[Riverbankannie]

One flaw with the Boundless policy is that if, like us, you have more than one vehicle and we each own one we would have to each have a membership. I cannot find out from their website if joint membership available.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Dorset Diver]

One flaw with the Boundless policy is that if, like us, you have more than one vehicle and we each own one we would have to each have a membership. I cannot find out from their website if joint membership available.

SWIMBO is a joint member with me so all of our vehicles are covered. If you are interested I suggest that you give them a call, email, or use the chat feature from their website. They really are very friendly and very helpful.

 

[Riverbankannie]

At present have legal fees protection with RAC but thinking of changing to ADAC which I assume does not.

 

[Dorset Diver]

I'm with ADAC and as you say they do not provide legal protection cover, however they do provide very good rescue services and I would recommend you use the premium cover which also provides medical repatriation.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}