After-the-event (ATE) premium

A further definition from The (Alternative) Legal Costs Dictionary:

After-the-event (ATE) premium n. a sum of money paid or payable for insurance against the risk of incurring a costs liability in proceedings. The premium is rarely paid at the outset and usually not paid at all if the claim is unsuccessful. The amount of the premium payable is often arbitrarily concocted as the case progresses and subsequently adjusted to whatever figure the court arbitrarily allows. An amount which market forces have never knowingly influenced.

7 thoughts on “After-the-event (ATE) premium

  1. Has anyone considered the impact on Defendants of the one-way costs shifting and the abolishment of ATE recovery?

    KNowing the major Insurers as I do, there being no prospect of recovery of any costs from Claimants, they will “cut their cloth” accordingly, and reduce what they pay to Defendants Panel firms. What was £450 a case will become £250.00 a case.

    What for the quality or quantity of Defendant representations in those circumstances in any given case?

  2. Have you tried to get an ATE insurer to apy when they have lost?

    Who do you think underwrites the policies?

    One way cost shifting will have no impact

  3. believe it or not some Claimant’s do use reputable ATE insurers

    Equally some of the bigger ATE insurers are also wholly owned subsideries of large insurers

  4. I can never get ATE insurers to pay out when we win. It is always a fight as they always allege breach of the policy terms by the claimants.

  5. I have many occaisions where the ATE provider pays out – I know many whom employ their own preferred costs negotiators

    I do sympathise with the occaisions where cover is latterly “refused”, but there are ways and means of flushing out payments, if you know the right buttons to press with the claimant solicitors concerned ;)

    The replies dont answer my question about the impact on reduced revenues offered to Defendants Solicitors however

  6. My views on the impact from defendant solicitors’ perspective, as to be published in the next edition of Personal Injury Law Journal, is:

    “Qualified one-way costs shifting is also bad news from defendant panel solicitors’ perspective, as there will no longer be higher hourly rates recovered in successfully defended CCFA funded cases. Defendant solicitors will be unable to recover more than they can charge their insurer client.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>