To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
7 thoughts on “After-the-event (ATE) premium”
Good description!
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.”