Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
QBE Technical Claims Brief October 2012

QBE Technical Claims Brief October 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 48|Likes:
Techical claims brief
Techical claims brief

More info:

Published by: QBE European Operations Risk Management on Jul 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





Technical claims brief
Monthly update – October 2012
News 1
Court of Appeal to review decision ondamages increase 1Police officially recognise“Mandate Fraud” as new crime 2US “Popcorn Lung” sufferer wins$7.2 million 3More claimants suing their solicitors 3
Costs 4
Court of Appeal departs from normalPart 36 Rules: SG v HewettCourt of Appeal 4
Liability 5
Motor insurers must compensateinjured passengers who have permitteduninsured driving: Churchill InsuranceCo Ltd v Wilkinson and Evansv Equity Claims Ltd –Court of Appeal 2012 5Outdoor pursuits company not liablefor “Welly-Wanging” Accident:Glenroy Blair-Ford v CRS AdventuresLtd High Court (2012)2 6
Disclaimer 7
 Technical claims brief, monthly update – September 20121
NewsCourt of Appeal to reviewdecision on damagesincrease
In the August 2012 edition of the Brief we reported on the Court of Appealannouncement in the case of 
Simmonsv Castle
that a ten percent increase ingeneral damages will apply to all casesheard in England and Wales where judgment is given on or after 1 April 2013.Following intervention from the Associationof British Insurers (ABI), the Court of  Appeal agreed to re-open the case and on25 September 2012 heard an applicationfrom the ABI, that the ruling shouldbe amended to exclude cases whereConditional Fee Agreements have beenentered into prior to 1 April. This would prevent claimants frombenefiting from both success fees underthe pre-Jackson regime and the damagesincrease intended to recompenseclaimants for the loss of these same fees.Judgment is expected imminently.
Comment: Defendants fear that unless the judgment is amended claimants will either  press for enhanced damages now or  simply delay settlement.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->