News and Insights

Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Steve Ruffle has been appointed as ATE Underwriting Manager and will be operating from our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Steve comes from a legal background, having worked for a number of years at a leading law firm in Surrey before joining Temple in 2009 where he qualified as a Chartered Legal Executive. In 2013, Steve was appointed underwriting manager where he was instrumental in developing insurance and funding options to meet the challenges presented by the Jackson reforms. As well as extensive experience of dealing with a range of commercial litigation, Steve is particularly well known for being an expert when it comes to ATE/funding for professional negligence, defamation and privacy litigation where he has been directly involved with many leading decisions. Steve’s role at Legal Protection Group is to service our rapidly growing ATE broker accounts in the City, and help establish our London office. Steve will report to Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, who also heads up the ATE division of Legal Protection Group. Commenting on the appointment, Phil said “I am delighted that Steve has decided to join Legal Protection Group. Steve has a great understanding of the needs of law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance and funding solutions. He is held in high regard by many in our sector”. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “It is great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert joining our growing ranks” You can contact Steve on: Email: [email protected] Direct Dial: 020 7118 0589 Mobile: 07342 997985

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Steve Ruffle has been appointed as ATE Underwriting Manager and will be operating from our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Steve comes from a legal background, having worked for a number of years at a leading law firm in Surrey before joining Temple in 2009 where he qualified as a Chartered Legal Executive. In 2013, Steve was appointed underwriting manager where he was instrumental in developing insurance and funding options to meet the challenges presented by the Jackson reforms. As well as extensive experience of dealing with a range of commercial litigation, Steve is particularly well known for being an expert when it comes to ATE/funding for professional negligence, defamation and privacy litigation where he has been directly involved with many leading decisions. Steve’s role at Legal Protection Group is to service our rapidly growing ATE broker accounts in the City, and help establish our London office. Steve will report to Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, who also heads up the ATE division of Legal Protection Group. Commenting on the appointment, Phil said “I am delighted that Steve has decided to join Legal Protection Group. Steve has a great understanding of the needs of law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance and funding solutions. He is held in high regard by many in our sector”. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “It is great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert joining our growing ranks” You can contact Steve on: Email: [email protected] Direct Dial: 020 7118 0589 Mobile: 07342 997985

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following on from our recent article on the Supreme Court decision in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant), we are again pleased to see that the court has sought to maintain vested rights and expectations arising from previous law/the LASPO exemptions. In "Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Flood and others" [2017] the media organisation appellants unsuccessfully attempted to argue that the threat of having to pay ATE insurance premiums and success fees was such a financial burden that it meant they were fearful of reporting news of interest to the public. Their legal argument was that the recoverability of additional liabilities infringed Article 10 and their right to freedom of expression and would have a ‘chilling effect’ on their reporting. Background to the Appeal The Supreme Court heard three joined appeals with each involving a challenge to an order for costs made by a High Court judge against a newspaper publisher following trial. Flood v Times Newspapers Limited (“Flood”) and Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd (“Miller”) each involved an allegation that the newspaper had libelled the claimant, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd (“Frost”) involved allegations that the newspaper had unlawfully gathered private information about the claimants by phone hacking. In each case, the newspaper publisher lost at trial and was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs. In each case, the original claimants had entered into Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and ATE insurance policies where the fees would be recoverable from the losing defendant upon success. Defamation and Privacy proceedings do of course remain litigation types which are exempt from the LASPO provisions introduced in 2013. In each appeal, the media organisations relied upon the decision of the European Court in MGN Ltd v United Kingdom, where it was held that MGN’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed by the order to reimburse the success fee and ATE premium incurred by the claimant. The newspaper publishers contended that the costs orders in the present appeals similarly infringed their rights under Article 10. The Judgment The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the media’s Article 10 rights had been breached as they felt it was inappropriate for it do so without the United Kingdom being a party to the proceedings. They did however find that, even if it was shown that Article 10 rights had been breached, it would then be necessary to consider a claimant’s rights and on balance decide which was more important. When it comes to a claimant’s rights the court identified that they had to consider whether restricting the ability for a claimant to recover legitimate costs which they had incurred would infringe their rights under Article 1 (right to property). The original claimants had incurred financial obligations in reliance on a statute and had a legitimate expectation that the statute would not be retrospectively repealed or otherwise invalidated to their detriment. On balance it was decided that whilst the principle of freedom of expression is a fundamental principle, the just and appropriate order under section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act was to dismiss the appeals, as to allow them would be a graver infringement of the claimants’ rights than the infringement which the newspaper publishers will suffer if the appeals are dismissed. Impact of this decision There were concerns prior to this decision that a ruling in favour of the media would result in ATE premiums for policies already taken out no longer being recoverable and the same for CFA success fees. Fortunately the Supreme Court has clarified the position and made clear that clients who have entered into valid arrangements in line with the law at the time have a right to rely on the arrangement they have made. For future media cases it is clear that the Supreme Court are looking for the Government to come up with an answer to the issue of costs. There is obviously not a simple answer to this question as otherwise there would not be an exemption for media cases in the first place. For the foreseeable future it appears to be that the current recoverable costs regime (plus additional liabilities) will continue unless the Government develops an alternative solution that maintains access to justice. As it is unclear for how long recoverable ATE insurance policies will remain in existence, Legal Protection Group recommend that insurance is taken out at the outset of any new matters as a priority. To discuss your insurance arrangements or any particular cases please call us on 0333 700 1040.      

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following on from our recent article on the Supreme Court decision in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant), we are again pleased to see that the court has sought to maintain vested rights and expectations arising from previous law/the LASPO exemptions. In "Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Flood and others" [2017] the media organisation appellants unsuccessfully attempted to argue that the threat of having to pay ATE insurance premiums and success fees was such a financial burden that it meant they were fearful of reporting news of interest to the public. Their legal argument was that the recoverability of additional liabilities infringed Article 10 and their right to freedom of expression and would have a ‘chilling effect’ on their reporting. Background to the Appeal The Supreme Court heard three joined appeals with each involving a challenge to an order for costs made by a High Court judge against a newspaper publisher following trial. Flood v Times Newspapers Limited (“Flood”) and Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd (“Miller”) each involved an allegation that the newspaper had libelled the claimant, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd (“Frost”) involved allegations that the newspaper had unlawfully gathered private information about the claimants by phone hacking. In each case, the newspaper publisher lost at trial and was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs. In each case, the original claimants had entered into Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and ATE insurance policies where the fees would be recoverable from the losing defendant upon success. Defamation and Privacy proceedings do of course remain litigation types which are exempt from the LASPO provisions introduced in 2013. In each appeal, the media organisations relied upon the decision of the European Court in MGN Ltd v United Kingdom, where it was held that MGN’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed by the order to reimburse the success fee and ATE premium incurred by the claimant. The newspaper publishers contended that the costs orders in the present appeals similarly infringed their rights under Article 10. The Judgment The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the media’s Article 10 rights had been breached as they felt it was inappropriate for it do so without the United Kingdom being a party to the proceedings. They did however find that, even if it was shown that Article 10 rights had been breached, it would then be necessary to consider a claimant’s rights and on balance decide which was more important. When it comes to a claimant’s rights the court identified that they had to consider whether restricting the ability for a claimant to recover legitimate costs which they had incurred would infringe their rights under Article 1 (right to property). The original claimants had incurred financial obligations in reliance on a statute and had a legitimate expectation that the statute would not be retrospectively repealed or otherwise invalidated to their detriment. On balance it was decided that whilst the principle of freedom of expression is a fundamental principle, the just and appropriate order under section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act was to dismiss the appeals, as to allow them would be a graver infringement of the claimants’ rights than the infringement which the newspaper publishers will suffer if the appeals are dismissed. Impact of this decision There were concerns prior to this decision that a ruling in favour of the media would result in ATE premiums for policies already taken out no longer being recoverable and the same for CFA success fees. Fortunately the Supreme Court has clarified the position and made clear that clients who have entered into valid arrangements in line with the law at the time have a right to rely on the arrangement they have made. For future media cases it is clear that the Supreme Court are looking for the Government to come up with an answer to the issue of costs. There is obviously not a simple answer to this question as otherwise there would not be an exemption for media cases in the first place. For the foreseeable future it appears to be that the current recoverable costs regime (plus additional liabilities) will continue unless the Government develops an alternative solution that maintains access to justice. As it is unclear for how long recoverable ATE insurance policies will remain in existence, Legal Protection Group recommend that insurance is taken out at the outset of any new matters as a priority. To discuss your insurance arrangements or any particular cases please call us on 0333 700 1040.      

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO, in relation to both success fees and ATE premiums, is to preserve vested rights and expectations arising from the previous law.   In this case the appellant argued that the policy in relation to the appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were distinct “proceedings” and therefore there was no policy in place at the commencement date with the characteristic required by the Act, i.e. that it related to the appeals. Background to the Appeal This judgment relates to a review of the costs assessment that followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 61. The respondent’s solicitors were acting under a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) with after-the-event insurance (“ATE”). The recoverability of a success fee under a CFA and the ATE insurance premium depended on the costs regime which was, subject to transitional provisions, brought to an end on 1 April 2013 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The respondent had entered into a CFA with her original solicitors, Miller Gardner, on 19 June 2008. Subsequently the CFA was varied in 2009 and in 2012 in response to organisational changes within Miller Gardner and was varied again in August 2013 and January 2014 so that the agreement covered work relating to the appeal.   Likewise, the ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008 and was then ‘topped up’ for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Costs in the Supreme Court were assessed by Master O’Hare and Mrs Registrar di Mambo at £751,463.84, including £31,378.92 for the solicitors’ success fee and £531,235 for the ATE insurance premium. The appellant applied for a review of costs on two grounds: (i) in relation to the success fee, the CFA was not validly assigned to the firms that replaced the respondent’s original solicitors on the record; and (ii) in relation to both the success fee and the ATE premium, these were not recoverable because they were payable under arrangements made by the respondent after LASPO came into force. Judgment The decision reached was 4-1 in favour of the respondent (with all Judges in agreement over the issue of assignment). The only dissent was in relation to whether the top-up element of the ATE premium was recoverable inter parties. Recoverability of the ATE Premium The ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008. It covered legal expenses and liability for the other side’s costs up to and including the “trial period”. It was “topped up” for the appeal to the Court of Appeal and again for the appeal to the Supreme Court. The top-ups did not give rise to fresh contracts and instead were true amendments to the policy which continued in effect subject to the same terms as amended.   But on both occasions, the amendment was made after LAPSO came into force.   The critical question was therefore whether the two appeals constituted part of the same ‘proceedings’ as the trial. The disagreement in interpretation arose from the fact that the wording of the transitional provisions relating to LASPO and ATE premiums differs slightly to that of the corresponding provisions relating to success fees.   Section 46(3) refers to an insurance policy “in relation to the proceedings” i.e. the requisite link is with the proceedings themselves and not to the subject matter of the proceedings, as Section 44(6) of LASPO refers in the context of success fees. Lord Hodge interpreted the transitional provisions as protecting only the pre-existing contractual rights in place before LASPO came into force.   However, the panel agreed 4 to 1 that the purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO is to preserve rights and expectations vested under the previous law and that that purpose would be defeated by a rigid distinction between the different stages of the same litigation. They argued that an insured claimant who succeeds at trial and becomes the respondent to an appeal is locked into litigation; if the top-up premium is not recoverable, it would retrospectively alter the balance of risks on the basis of which the litigation was begun. They therefore determined that the difference in language between sections 44(6) and 46(3) are not significant in this regard and that there is no reason why the legislation should have wished to limit the transitional provisions in section 46(3) to a particular stage in litigation, while extending those in sections 44(6) and 47(2) to arrangements relating to the underlying ‘matter’. For full details of the judgment click https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0037-judgment.pdf  

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO, in relation to both success fees and ATE premiums, is to preserve vested rights and expectations arising from the previous law.   In this case the appellant argued that the policy in relation to the appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were distinct “proceedings” and therefore there was no policy in place at the commencement date with the characteristic required by the Act, i.e. that it related to the appeals. Background to the Appeal This judgment relates to a review of the costs assessment that followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 61. The respondent’s solicitors were acting under a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) with after-the-event insurance (“ATE”). The recoverability of a success fee under a CFA and the ATE insurance premium depended on the costs regime which was, subject to transitional provisions, brought to an end on 1 April 2013 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The respondent had entered into a CFA with her original solicitors, Miller Gardner, on 19 June 2008. Subsequently the CFA was varied in 2009 and in 2012 in response to organisational changes within Miller Gardner and was varied again in August 2013 and January 2014 so that the agreement covered work relating to the appeal.   Likewise, the ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008 and was then ‘topped up’ for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Costs in the Supreme Court were assessed by Master O’Hare and Mrs Registrar di Mambo at £751,463.84, including £31,378.92 for the solicitors’ success fee and £531,235 for the ATE insurance premium. The appellant applied for a review of costs on two grounds: (i) in relation to the success fee, the CFA was not validly assigned to the firms that replaced the respondent’s original solicitors on the record; and (ii) in relation to both the success fee and the ATE premium, these were not recoverable because they were payable under arrangements made by the respondent after LASPO came into force. Judgment The decision reached was 4-1 in favour of the respondent (with all Judges in agreement over the issue of assignment). The only dissent was in relation to whether the top-up element of the ATE premium was recoverable inter parties. Recoverability of the ATE Premium The ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008. It covered legal expenses and liability for the other side’s costs up to and including the “trial period”. It was “topped up” for the appeal to the Court of Appeal and again for the appeal to the Supreme Court. The top-ups did not give rise to fresh contracts and instead were true amendments to the policy which continued in effect subject to the same terms as amended.   But on both occasions, the amendment was made after LAPSO came into force.   The critical question was therefore whether the two appeals constituted part of the same ‘proceedings’ as the trial. The disagreement in interpretation arose from the fact that the wording of the transitional provisions relating to LASPO and ATE premiums differs slightly to that of the corresponding provisions relating to success fees.   Section 46(3) refers to an insurance policy “in relation to the proceedings” i.e. the requisite link is with the proceedings themselves and not to the subject matter of the proceedings, as Section 44(6) of LASPO refers in the context of success fees. Lord Hodge interpreted the transitional provisions as protecting only the pre-existing contractual rights in place before LASPO came into force.   However, the panel agreed 4 to 1 that the purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO is to preserve rights and expectations vested under the previous law and that that purpose would be defeated by a rigid distinction between the different stages of the same litigation. They argued that an insured claimant who succeeds at trial and becomes the respondent to an appeal is locked into litigation; if the top-up premium is not recoverable, it would retrospectively alter the balance of risks on the basis of which the litigation was begun. They therefore determined that the difference in language between sections 44(6) and 46(3) are not significant in this regard and that there is no reason why the legislation should have wished to limit the transitional provisions in section 46(3) to a particular stage in litigation, while extending those in sections 44(6) and 47(2) to arrangements relating to the underlying ‘matter’. For full details of the judgment click https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0037-judgment.pdf  

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The long-running legal challenge to the introduction of employment tribunal fees is nearing its conclusion following a hearing at the Supreme Court. Tribunal fees were first introduced in 2013 and since July of that year anyone who has been treated unlawfully or unfairly by their employer, and who wants to challenge them at an employment tribunal, has had to pay a fee, which ranges from £390 to as much as £1,200. Back in January this year, the government produced a review of the impact of fees showing that there had been a 70% drop in the number of cases since July 2013.  It indicated that low-paid women, especially those treated unfairly when they were pregnant or on maternity leave, have been the biggest losers. UNISON’s case to the Supreme Court will assert that the government’s decision to demand a fee from anyone taking their employer to court has stopped many thousands of badly treated employees – especially those on low incomes – from getting justice.   If the case goes in favour of the government it will mark the end of the appeal process for the union, which has been engaged in a four year legal battle. Unison’s case was first heard in the High Court in 2013 and the Court of Appeal in April 2015. However, its claims were dismissed both times. Unison was represented by Dinah Rose QC of Blackstone Chambers instructed by Unison’s in-house legal officer, solicitor Shantha David. The Lord Chancellor was represented by David Barr QC, of Temple Garden Chambers. Summing up, Rose said ‘it is unlawful for the lord chancellor, by delegated legislation, to introduce a fee scheme that makes enforcement of UK employment law rights uneconomical’. In earlier arguments she said the fees scheme had ‘clearly had a very serious impact on rights of access to justice, shutting out large numbers of the small claims that the tribunal was set up to hear.’   Barr said it was ‘entirely justifiable’ to charge different fees for different levels of service. He added that all alternative systems would be worse than the current ‘two tiered system’. Judgment is expected within six months.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The long-running legal challenge to the introduction of employment tribunal fees is nearing its conclusion following a hearing at the Supreme Court. Tribunal fees were first introduced in 2013 and since July of that year anyone who has been treated unlawfully or unfairly by their employer, and who wants to challenge them at an employment tribunal, has had to pay a fee, which ranges from £390 to as much as £1,200. Back in January this year, the government produced a review of the impact of fees showing that there had been a 70% drop in the number of cases since July 2013.  It indicated that low-paid women, especially those treated unfairly when they were pregnant or on maternity leave, have been the biggest losers. UNISON’s case to the Supreme Court will assert that the government’s decision to demand a fee from anyone taking their employer to court has stopped many thousands of badly treated employees – especially those on low incomes – from getting justice.   If the case goes in favour of the government it will mark the end of the appeal process for the union, which has been engaged in a four year legal battle. Unison’s case was first heard in the High Court in 2013 and the Court of Appeal in April 2015. However, its claims were dismissed both times. Unison was represented by Dinah Rose QC of Blackstone Chambers instructed by Unison’s in-house legal officer, solicitor Shantha David. The Lord Chancellor was represented by David Barr QC, of Temple Garden Chambers. Summing up, Rose said ‘it is unlawful for the lord chancellor, by delegated legislation, to introduce a fee scheme that makes enforcement of UK employment law rights uneconomical’. In earlier arguments she said the fees scheme had ‘clearly had a very serious impact on rights of access to justice, shutting out large numbers of the small claims that the tribunal was set up to hear.’   Barr said it was ‘entirely justifiable’ to charge different fees for different levels of service. He added that all alternative systems would be worse than the current ‘two tiered system’. Judgment is expected within six months.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Martin Rowan, Managing Director, is pleased to announce that Legal Protection Group has joined the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA). The MGAA is a non-profit making organisation that represents UK managing general agents and works both within the professionalism framework of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) and observes its own code of conduct. The MGAA was formed in 2011 to give the insurance industry a better understanding of what an MGAA is and what they contribute to the insurance market. It is a central body that can put members’ views to government departments and agencies including the FCA and Parliament. It also represents members’ interests in discussions over legislation and regulation which may impact them. In addition it sets best practice guidelines and works actively to improve the Underwriting Agency sector’s professionalism, stability and competitiveness. While the MGAA was instituted for the purpose of giving MGAs a unified voice on these issues, increasingly, the Association is now also serving as an important body for bringing about greater levels of understanding, transparency and professionalism throughout the wider MGA community. Membership is made up of MGAs and their supporting insurer partners together with professional organisations that bring particular knowledge and insight to the delegated underwriting sector. Legal Protection Group is looking forward to becoming an active member of MGAA and joining in with the many events that the Association organises for members.   For more information on the MGAA, please visit www.mgaa.co.uk.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Martin Rowan, Managing Director, is pleased to announce that Legal Protection Group has joined the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA). The MGAA is a non-profit making organisation that represents UK managing general agents and works both within the professionalism framework of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) and observes its own code of conduct. The MGAA was formed in 2011 to give the insurance industry a better understanding of what an MGAA is and what they contribute to the insurance market. It is a central body that can put members’ views to government departments and agencies including the FCA and Parliament. It also represents members’ interests in discussions over legislation and regulation which may impact them. In addition it sets best practice guidelines and works actively to improve the Underwriting Agency sector’s professionalism, stability and competitiveness. While the MGAA was instituted for the purpose of giving MGAs a unified voice on these issues, increasingly, the Association is now also serving as an important body for bringing about greater levels of understanding, transparency and professionalism throughout the wider MGA community. Membership is made up of MGAs and their supporting insurer partners together with professional organisations that bring particular knowledge and insight to the delegated underwriting sector. Legal Protection Group is looking forward to becoming an active member of MGAA and joining in with the many events that the Association organises for members.   For more information on the MGAA, please visit www.mgaa.co.uk.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Under existing rules, the ATE premium arranged to cover unrecovered disbursements (medical reports) is theoretically recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant (normally the NHS).   However, as we have seen many times before, Judges are not insurance underwriters and the relationship between required risk premiums and “proportionality” can be a difficult subject for them. Here we review the case from a legal prospective, an underwriting risk management perspective and raise questions about the viability of ATE clinical negligence insurance in the current regime. Background Mr Rezek-Clarke had a fairly routine clinical negligence claim against the NHS. His solicitors had correctly estimated that the quantum would be less than £5,000. In the event the award to Mr Rezek-Clarke was £3,250, plus costs on the standard basis. Legal opinion On 29 October 2015, the Claimant’s solicitors served their Bill of Costs in the sum of £72,320.85, including medical reports totalling £18,036.00 and an ATE premium of £31,976.49 and therefore the question arose as to whether these costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. The costs case was heard by Master Simons, Costs Judge, who raised three distinct concerns: the confusion caused by the incorrect premium being claimed in the Bill of Costs; the methodology of calculation of the ATE premium by the Insurer; and whether the costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. Firstly, there was some confusion as to the correct premium charged by the ATE Insurer. The claimants conceded that the premium claimed at £31,976.49 in the Bill of Costs had been incorrectly calculated and that the correct premium was the lower figure of £22,255.23.   The claimant could provide no explanation as to why the certified Bill of Costs contained such a substantial error. In response Master Simons pointed out that “A major difficulty that the Claimants have is that they cannot tell me what the insurance premium is. The amount claimed in the bill is £31,976.49 (including IPT) and a certificate has been produced identifying this amount. The Bill of Costs has been certified as being true and accurate. I am now told that the amount of the insurance premium is wrong and that the correct premium is £22,225.23. In these circumstances I would be justified in disallowing the premium in its entirety”. Master Simons then questioned both the methodology of calculation of the premium and the corresponding proportionality of the claim. “I also question the methodology of calculation of the premium. This is based on the cost of the medical reports whether or not the costs of those reports are reasonable. Where, as in this case, I have considered that the cost of the medical reports is unreasonable and disproportionate in amount, the Claimant is seeking to recover part of a premium that includes an uplift of 200% of those parts of the fees that are unreasonable. As the premium is deferred, surely the basis of calculation should be on the reasonable amount of the fees for the medical reports”. In the event, Master Simons assessed the bill in the sum of £24,604.40, including amounts claimed for medical reports (reduced from £18,036 to £9,000). Master Simons also reduced the ATE premium from £31,976.49 to just £2,120.00. Our view on the ATE insurance arrangements It is unclear why the premium was initially miscalculated. However, looking at the facts of the case, one does wonder why a case, with such a glaring premium miscalculation at the outset was pursued to the SCCO. Of all the numerous challenged clinical negligence cases, this was not the case to run. Secondly, the policy in this case was block-rated which meant that the method of calculating the premium did not relate to the facts of the individual case but instead to the basket of risks that the ATE Insurer holds for cases across its book. On behalf of the ATE Insurer, David Brown an ATE Underwriting Manager, stated that that the recoverable element of premium for clinical negligence cases is rated at 200% of the estimated costs of liability plus IPT at the prevailing rate. Mr Brown said that the use of a 200% rating factor flows from the company’s historical experience that there is a failure rate of 75% on insured pre-issue cases. With regard to the calculation of the premium, while we support the method of calculation i.e. a basket of risks, which has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Rogers ( a landmark ATE case), we struggle to reconcile the actual rates used within the calculation.   We believe that in order to insure a risk with a 75% failure rate, the premium required to cover just the burning cost of claims is 300% of the risk, not 200%. Add to this the reasonable cost of expenses – say 15% – and a profit margin of 10% and the premium required is nearly 400% of the sum insured. So, on the face of it, the ATE insurer is charging a premium roughly half of what they need in order to make a profit based upon an expected loss rate of 75%. However, it may be that the insurer was prepared to suffer losses on pre-issue business, in the hope of making these up on post-issue business where the failure rate is much lower. This then leads to the next point which is proportionality. It should be obvious to any insurer that a court is not going to allow a premium as claimed of £31,976.49 + IPT in a small claim worth just £3,250. In the event, the judge allowed £2,120, which represents 65% of the claim value and this gives us a clue as to what might be regarded as a proportionate premium. The future for ATE Clinical Negligence insurance? Recent underwriting and cash flow results from companies with significant Clinical Negligence ATE books clearly support the conclusion that this type of ATE business is generally unprofitable. As from October 2018 there will be a major shake-up in the costs regime for personal injury cases generally and it is almost inconceivable that Clinical Negligence ATE premiums will continue to be partly recoverable after this date. This should herald a new beginning for Clinical Negligence ATE and companies such as Legal Protection Group, without the burden of under-priced legacy risks, will be at the forefront of the new era requiring much tighter selection of cases and in which ATE premiums will be deducted from damages. For further information, please contact our Director of Underwriting, Phil Bellamy, on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Under existing rules, the ATE premium arranged to cover unrecovered disbursements (medical reports) is theoretically recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant (normally the NHS).   However, as we have seen many times before, Judges are not insurance underwriters and the relationship between required risk premiums and “proportionality” can be a difficult subject for them. Here we review the case from a legal prospective, an underwriting risk management perspective and raise questions about the viability of ATE clinical negligence insurance in the current regime. Background Mr Rezek-Clarke had a fairly routine clinical negligence claim against the NHS. His solicitors had correctly estimated that the quantum would be less than £5,000. In the event the award to Mr Rezek-Clarke was £3,250, plus costs on the standard basis. Legal opinion On 29 October 2015, the Claimant’s solicitors served their Bill of Costs in the sum of £72,320.85, including medical reports totalling £18,036.00 and an ATE premium of £31,976.49 and therefore the question arose as to whether these costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. The costs case was heard by Master Simons, Costs Judge, who raised three distinct concerns: the confusion caused by the incorrect premium being claimed in the Bill of Costs; the methodology of calculation of the ATE premium by the Insurer; and whether the costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. Firstly, there was some confusion as to the correct premium charged by the ATE Insurer. The claimants conceded that the premium claimed at £31,976.49 in the Bill of Costs had been incorrectly calculated and that the correct premium was the lower figure of £22,255.23.   The claimant could provide no explanation as to why the certified Bill of Costs contained such a substantial error. In response Master Simons pointed out that “A major difficulty that the Claimants have is that they cannot tell me what the insurance premium is. The amount claimed in the bill is £31,976.49 (including IPT) and a certificate has been produced identifying this amount. The Bill of Costs has been certified as being true and accurate. I am now told that the amount of the insurance premium is wrong and that the correct premium is £22,225.23. In these circumstances I would be justified in disallowing the premium in its entirety”. Master Simons then questioned both the methodology of calculation of the premium and the corresponding proportionality of the claim. “I also question the methodology of calculation of the premium. This is based on the cost of the medical reports whether or not the costs of those reports are reasonable. Where, as in this case, I have considered that the cost of the medical reports is unreasonable and disproportionate in amount, the Claimant is seeking to recover part of a premium that includes an uplift of 200% of those parts of the fees that are unreasonable. As the premium is deferred, surely the basis of calculation should be on the reasonable amount of the fees for the medical reports”. In the event, Master Simons assessed the bill in the sum of £24,604.40, including amounts claimed for medical reports (reduced from £18,036 to £9,000). Master Simons also reduced the ATE premium from £31,976.49 to just £2,120.00. Our view on the ATE insurance arrangements It is unclear why the premium was initially miscalculated. However, looking at the facts of the case, one does wonder why a case, with such a glaring premium miscalculation at the outset was pursued to the SCCO. Of all the numerous challenged clinical negligence cases, this was not the case to run. Secondly, the policy in this case was block-rated which meant that the method of calculating the premium did not relate to the facts of the individual case but instead to the basket of risks that the ATE Insurer holds for cases across its book. On behalf of the ATE Insurer, David Brown an ATE Underwriting Manager, stated that that the recoverable element of premium for clinical negligence cases is rated at 200% of the estimated costs of liability plus IPT at the prevailing rate. Mr Brown said that the use of a 200% rating factor flows from the company’s historical experience that there is a failure rate of 75% on insured pre-issue cases. With regard to the calculation of the premium, while we support the method of calculation i.e. a basket of risks, which has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Rogers ( a landmark ATE case), we struggle to reconcile the actual rates used within the calculation.   We believe that in order to insure a risk with a 75% failure rate, the premium required to cover just the burning cost of claims is 300% of the risk, not 200%. Add to this the reasonable cost of expenses – say 15% – and a profit margin of 10% and the premium required is nearly 400% of the sum insured. So, on the face of it, the ATE insurer is charging a premium roughly half of what they need in order to make a profit based upon an expected loss rate of 75%. However, it may be that the insurer was prepared to suffer losses on pre-issue business, in the hope of making these up on post-issue business where the failure rate is much lower. This then leads to the next point which is proportionality. It should be obvious to any insurer that a court is not going to allow a premium as claimed of £31,976.49 + IPT in a small claim worth just £3,250. In the event, the judge allowed £2,120, which represents 65% of the claim value and this gives us a clue as to what might be regarded as a proportionate premium. The future for ATE Clinical Negligence insurance? Recent underwriting and cash flow results from companies with significant Clinical Negligence ATE books clearly support the conclusion that this type of ATE business is generally unprofitable. As from October 2018 there will be a major shake-up in the costs regime for personal injury cases generally and it is almost inconceivable that Clinical Negligence ATE premiums will continue to be partly recoverable after this date. This should herald a new beginning for Clinical Negligence ATE and companies such as Legal Protection Group, without the burden of under-priced legacy risks, will be at the forefront of the new era requiring much tighter selection of cases and in which ATE premiums will be deducted from damages. For further information, please contact our Director of Underwriting, Phil Bellamy, on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The Government has now confirmed that the reforms to the personal injury claims regime will come into effect on 1st October 2018 when the Prisons & Courts Act becomes law. The key changes are: The Small Claims limit for all road traffic accident matters will increase from £1,000 to £5,000. The Small Claims limit for non-RTA cases will increase from £1,000 to £2,000. A new damages tariff for most RTA soft tissue injuries (whiplash) will be introduced. Offers to settle claims before a medical report is obtained will be banned.   Prior to the publication of the Prisons & Courts Bill, it was widely assumed that the Small Claims limit would be increased fairly quickly and that any tariff for whiplash claims might follow at a later date, so the Government’s decision to implement all of the changes in October next year will have come as a nasty shock to RTA personal injury lawyers. What do the changes mean? At present, RTA personal injury claimants who have not arranged legal protection insurance will most likely be directed to a law firm happy to run the case in return for a 25% contingency fee. The claimant will also be expected to arrange ATE cover which is likely to cost around £50 for portal cases. Currently, the average award for soft tissue injuries of 4 – 6 months duration is £2,150, so the cost to the claimant amounts to £587.50 including ATE cover, leaving a net award of £1,562.50. The claimant’s lawyer will, in addition to the deduction from damages, also recover fixed costs of at least £200 but more likely £500, so the lawyer’s total income normally amounts to just over £1,000. The increase in the Small Claims limit alone would have seen lawyers adjust their business model to take a higher contingency fee percentage, in order to compensate for the reduction in fixed recoverable costs. For example a 40% deduction from an average award still nets £860, plus some small recoverable costs. However, the killer blow for claimant RTA lawyers (and those injured in accidents) is the introduction of the whiplash tariff. The typical £2,150 paid out under the current system falls to just £450 under the tariff, so even a contingency fee of 40% still only produces an income of £180 which (most lawyers would say) is not enough to cover the cost of running the claim. In any event, it is doubtful that a typical claimant will be bothered to make a claim in the first place if their net award is likely to be as low as £270, especially as they will have to go through the process of being medically examined. It’s difficult to be precise at this stage, but it would be very surprising if the total number of RTA claims brought by those who do not have legal expenses insurance did not drop by at least 50 percent. Legal Expenses Insurance A significant number of motorists already purchase Motor Legal Expenses Insurance (MLEI) and this cover becomes even more necessary under the new regime. The reduction in typical damages of nearly 80 percent is bad enough for innocent victims but if this is also accompanied by a contingency fee deduction, then the whole situation becomes untenable. At least those with MLEI will keep 100 percent of what compensation is available and this should be a strong selling point for all motor insurance brokers or other retailers. Of course, brokers also enjoy a significant income stream from MLEI sales, with a typical commission of at least £25 per policy thanks to the very low net premium rates currently available in the market. Now that the extent of the personal injury changes are known, there will of course be a sharp upward movement in net premiums charged by MLEI providers, as they will no longer be able to get lawyers to handle injury claims free of charge and will in future have to pay the lawyer’s fees. Whereas today’s net premium might be less than £1.00, going forward this is likely to increase to £7.00 – £8.00, thus reducing the broker’s margin. However, we will probably begin to see brokers increasing the retail price of MLEI to make up for some of the increase; for example an increase from £30 to £35 is unlikely to have any significant impact on take-up rates and the increased need for cover will help maintain or improve sales levels. Motorcyclists The new whiplash tariff does not apply to motorcycle accidents. Therefore, motorcyclists will remain entitled to current levels of compensation, all the more reason why they need MLEI cover to avoid a large cash deduction by way of a contingency fee. Indeed, it is hard to see how the demands and needs of a motorcyclist are properly met if their motor insurance does not include legal expenses insurance cover. Unintended Consequences For non-RTA claims (EL, PL and so on) the new Small Claims limit is £2,000, up from £1,000. This will cause some claims inflation. Cases that currently settle for £1,500 will in future settle for just over £2,000, so good news for claimants and lawyers operating on a contingency fee, but bad news for insurers. Informed observers have suggested that the new RTA personal injury regime will result in tens of thousands of redundancies as personal injury lawyers close for business. Although the Government has brushed this claim aside, it does seem pretty obvious that a lot of RTA law firms will now disappear; this process has been ongoing for some time and will now accelerate rapidly. Even those lawyers with strong relationships with legal expenses insurers may find that the insurers now choose to run the cases in house without having to go through the bother of setting up an ABS law firm, as of course you don’t need to be a lawyer to run a case in the Small Claims Court. However, claimant lawyers have learnt to be adaptable over the years and new business models will also emerge, although whether they will prove sustainable remains to be seen. Given that non-RTA claims remain attractive work, we can expect a surge in these as new types of claim are mined by claims management companies (according to ABTA, there has been a ‘dramatic increase’ in holiday sickness claims, for example). What should Brokers Do Now? October 2018 may seem a long way off, but in reality legal expenses providers will want to renegotiate terms on MLEI deals within the next six months in order to avoid having live unexpired risks after October 2018 which have been priced according to the current costs regime. Therefore, in order to avoid having to simply accept whatever pricing changes are imposed by a current provider, brokers should start looking at market offers as soon as possible in order to enable future income planning. MLEI providers which have planned ahead for the new regime will be able to offer brokers transitional deals from October this year which lead into long term pricing structures from October 2018 onwards, so the message to brokers is: start planning ahead now and don’t be caught out. Motor Legal Protection Plus cover from Legal Protection Group provides up to £100,000 of legal costs cover for accident and injury claims, contract disputes, defence of prosecutions and vehicle cloning and MIB problems. We are ready to provide transitional pricing structures ahead of the enactment of the new law and a very competitive pricing structure in the longer term. To find out more, please contact Andy Westall, Sales Director, or Martin Bex, Sales Manager on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The Government has now confirmed that the reforms to the personal injury claims regime will come into effect on 1st October 2018 when the Prisons & Courts Act becomes law. The key changes are: The Small Claims limit for all road traffic accident matters will increase from £1,000 to £5,000. The Small Claims limit for non-RTA cases will increase from £1,000 to £2,000. A new damages tariff for most RTA soft tissue injuries (whiplash) will be introduced. Offers to settle claims before a medical report is obtained will be banned.   Prior to the publication of the Prisons & Courts Bill, it was widely assumed that the Small Claims limit would be increased fairly quickly and that any tariff for whiplash claims might follow at a later date, so the Government’s decision to implement all of the changes in October next year will have come as a nasty shock to RTA personal injury lawyers. What do the changes mean? At present, RTA personal injury claimants who have not arranged legal protection insurance will most likely be directed to a law firm happy to run the case in return for a 25% contingency fee. The claimant will also be expected to arrange ATE cover which is likely to cost around £50 for portal cases. Currently, the average award for soft tissue injuries of 4 – 6 months duration is £2,150, so the cost to the claimant amounts to £587.50 including ATE cover, leaving a net award of £1,562.50. The claimant’s lawyer will, in addition to the deduction from damages, also recover fixed costs of at least £200 but more likely £500, so the lawyer’s total income normally amounts to just over £1,000. The increase in the Small Claims limit alone would have seen lawyers adjust their business model to take a higher contingency fee percentage, in order to compensate for the reduction in fixed recoverable costs. For example a 40% deduction from an average award still nets £860, plus some small recoverable costs. However, the killer blow for claimant RTA lawyers (and those injured in accidents) is the introduction of the whiplash tariff. The typical £2,150 paid out under the current system falls to just £450 under the tariff, so even a contingency fee of 40% still only produces an income of £180 which (most lawyers would say) is not enough to cover the cost of running the claim. In any event, it is doubtful that a typical claimant will be bothered to make a claim in the first place if their net award is likely to be as low as £270, especially as they will have to go through the process of being medically examined. It’s difficult to be precise at this stage, but it would be very surprising if the total number of RTA claims brought by those who do not have legal expenses insurance did not drop by at least 50 percent. Legal Expenses Insurance A significant number of motorists already purchase Motor Legal Expenses Insurance (MLEI) and this cover becomes even more necessary under the new regime. The reduction in typical damages of nearly 80 percent is bad enough for innocent victims but if this is also accompanied by a contingency fee deduction, then the whole situation becomes untenable. At least those with MLEI will keep 100 percent of what compensation is available and this should be a strong selling point for all motor insurance brokers or other retailers. Of course, brokers also enjoy a significant income stream from MLEI sales, with a typical commission of at least £25 per policy thanks to the very low net premium rates currently available in the market. Now that the extent of the personal injury changes are known, there will of course be a sharp upward movement in net premiums charged by MLEI providers, as they will no longer be able to get lawyers to handle injury claims free of charge and will in future have to pay the lawyer’s fees. Whereas today’s net premium might be less than £1.00, going forward this is likely to increase to £7.00 – £8.00, thus reducing the broker’s margin. However, we will probably begin to see brokers increasing the retail price of MLEI to make up for some of the increase; for example an increase from £30 to £35 is unlikely to have any significant impact on take-up rates and the increased need for cover will help maintain or improve sales levels. Motorcyclists The new whiplash tariff does not apply to motorcycle accidents. Therefore, motorcyclists will remain entitled to current levels of compensation, all the more reason why they need MLEI cover to avoid a large cash deduction by way of a contingency fee. Indeed, it is hard to see how the demands and needs of a motorcyclist are properly met if their motor insurance does not include legal expenses insurance cover. Unintended Consequences For non-RTA claims (EL, PL and so on) the new Small Claims limit is £2,000, up from £1,000. This will cause some claims inflation. Cases that currently settle for £1,500 will in future settle for just over £2,000, so good news for claimants and lawyers operating on a contingency fee, but bad news for insurers. Informed observers have suggested that the new RTA personal injury regime will result in tens of thousands of redundancies as personal injury lawyers close for business. Although the Government has brushed this claim aside, it does seem pretty obvious that a lot of RTA law firms will now disappear; this process has been ongoing for some time and will now accelerate rapidly. Even those lawyers with strong relationships with legal expenses insurers may find that the insurers now choose to run the cases in house without having to go through the bother of setting up an ABS law firm, as of course you don’t need to be a lawyer to run a case in the Small Claims Court. However, claimant lawyers have learnt to be adaptable over the years and new business models will also emerge, although whether they will prove sustainable remains to be seen. Given that non-RTA claims remain attractive work, we can expect a surge in these as new types of claim are mined by claims management companies (according to ABTA, there has been a ‘dramatic increase’ in holiday sickness claims, for example). What should Brokers Do Now? October 2018 may seem a long way off, but in reality legal expenses providers will want to renegotiate terms on MLEI deals within the next six months in order to avoid having live unexpired risks after October 2018 which have been priced according to the current costs regime. Therefore, in order to avoid having to simply accept whatever pricing changes are imposed by a current provider, brokers should start looking at market offers as soon as possible in order to enable future income planning. MLEI providers which have planned ahead for the new regime will be able to offer brokers transitional deals from October this year which lead into long term pricing structures from October 2018 onwards, so the message to brokers is: start planning ahead now and don’t be caught out. Motor Legal Protection Plus cover from Legal Protection Group provides up to £100,000 of legal costs cover for accident and injury claims, contract disputes, defence of prosecutions and vehicle cloning and MIB problems. We are ready to provide transitional pricing structures ahead of the enactment of the new law and a very competitive pricing structure in the longer term. To find out more, please contact Andy Westall, Sales Director, or Martin Bex, Sales Manager on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to be entering a new partnership with Tenant Farmers Association to provide legal expenses insurance for its members including cover for agricultural landlord tenant disputes. Andy Westall, Sales Director for Legal Protection Group, said “We are naturally delighted that the TFA has chosen Legal Protection Group to provide its members with specialist legal expenses protection. Our businesses share a real passion for providing the highest quality and most relevant policy covers to all members. Legal Protection Group will provide unrivalled levels of management and ongoing support for the TFA“. TFA Chief Executive George Dunn said “When the TFA launched its legal expenses insurance in 1999 with DAS, it was the first of its kind in combining the standard cover for legal disputes available with new cover for landlord and tenant disputes in the agricultural sector resolved through arbitration and tribunals. Over the last 18 years we have sought to develop the policy into an effective tool for farm tenants in managing disputes with their landlords. Whilst we have seen the emergence of other policies attempting to replicate the cover provided by the TFA, we still consider ours to be a Rolls-Royce policy.” “The move to the Legal Protection Group gives us the opportunity to extend coverage to include wider contract disputes at no additional cost to TFA members with the insurance. We are also able to streamline the administration particularly on claims handling. Overall we are envisaging a significant improvement in service levels to TFA members whilst continuing to provide high quality cover at a reasonable cost,” said Mr Dunn. “The costs of formal resolution of disputes arising from an agricultural tenancy rise all the time and are often much higher than the financial difference between the parties. Having insurance in place to cover these costs in the event that they arise is a must,” said Mr Dunn.

by Sheena Court

Wed 26 Jul 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to be entering a new partnership with Tenant Farmers Association to provide legal expenses insurance for its members including cover for agricultural landlord tenant disputes. Andy Westall, Sales Director for Legal Protection Group, said “We are naturally delighted that the TFA has chosen Legal Protection Group to provide its members with specialist legal expenses protection. Our businesses share a real passion for providing the highest quality and most relevant policy covers to all members. Legal Protection Group will provide unrivalled levels of management and ongoing support for the TFA“. TFA Chief Executive George Dunn said “When the TFA launched its legal expenses insurance in 1999 with DAS, it was the first of its kind in combining the standard cover for legal disputes available with new cover for landlord and tenant disputes in the agricultural sector resolved through arbitration and tribunals. Over the last 18 years we have sought to develop the policy into an effective tool for farm tenants in managing disputes with their landlords. Whilst we have seen the emergence of other policies attempting to replicate the cover provided by the TFA, we still consider ours to be a Rolls-Royce policy.” “The move to the Legal Protection Group gives us the opportunity to extend coverage to include wider contract disputes at no additional cost to TFA members with the insurance. We are also able to streamline the administration particularly on claims handling. Overall we are envisaging a significant improvement in service levels to TFA members whilst continuing to provide high quality cover at a reasonable cost,” said Mr Dunn. “The costs of formal resolution of disputes arising from an agricultural tenancy rise all the time and are often much higher than the financial difference between the parties. Having insurance in place to cover these costs in the event that they arise is a must,” said Mr Dunn.

by Sheena Court

Wed 26 Jul 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce Richard Whale has joined our team as Head of ATE Sales based out of the Bristol office. Richard has gained considerable experience in the market since starting his career in ATE insurance back in 2002 with Greystoke Legal Services before moving the LawAssist brand on to Litigation Protection and finally DAS where he was instrumental in the development of post LASPO ATE insurance products and helping solicitor business partners adapt to the Jackson reforms. Richard’s role at Legal Protection Group is to focus on special projects as well as to develop and service the already rapidly growing ATE insurance panel of solicitor firms by helping them understand the impact of the latest proposed government legal reforms, identifying their insurance and funding requirements and ensuring they have access to ‘best of breed’ products and high quality customer service to fully protect their clients. Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It is great news that Richard has joined our team at such an exciting time of our development, where he will be able to hit the floor running with many of his old colleagues in support. Richard’s knowledge of the ever evolving ATE marketplace will assist our partners navigate current and future legislation changes, and also help develop new market leading products and initiatives.” Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Richard’s knowledge and experience further strengthens our ATE team and I look forward to working with him on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months." You can contact Richard on:  Email: [email protected]  Mobile: 07388 220 309  Direct Dial: 01179 726776

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Aug 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce Richard Whale has joined our team as Head of ATE Sales based out of the Bristol office. Richard has gained considerable experience in the market since starting his career in ATE insurance back in 2002 with Greystoke Legal Services before moving the LawAssist brand on to Litigation Protection and finally DAS where he was instrumental in the development of post LASPO ATE insurance products and helping solicitor business partners adapt to the Jackson reforms. Richard’s role at Legal Protection Group is to focus on special projects as well as to develop and service the already rapidly growing ATE insurance panel of solicitor firms by helping them understand the impact of the latest proposed government legal reforms, identifying their insurance and funding requirements and ensuring they have access to ‘best of breed’ products and high quality customer service to fully protect their clients. Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It is great news that Richard has joined our team at such an exciting time of our development, where he will be able to hit the floor running with many of his old colleagues in support. Richard’s knowledge of the ever evolving ATE marketplace will assist our partners navigate current and future legislation changes, and also help develop new market leading products and initiatives.” Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Richard’s knowledge and experience further strengthens our ATE team and I look forward to working with him on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months." You can contact Richard on:  Email: [email protected]  Mobile: 07388 220 309  Direct Dial: 01179 726776

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Aug 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Dan Quinn has been appointed as ATE Underwriter. Dan is the latest addition to an already impressive team of experienced ATE professionals at Legal Protection Group and he will be based at our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from Elite Insurance, where he was also an ATE Underwriter, Dan has extensive experience dealing with commercial litigation, in particular, insolvency, defamation and professional negligence and clinical negligence. He was also specifically involved in producing diverse schemes ranging from Japanese Knotweed to Scottish clinical negligence cases. Dan has worked for Elite Insurance since 2011, but previously, Dan held various ATE and BTE roles at First Assist and Abbey Legal. Dan's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Dan will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Dan is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Dan said “It is an exciting time to be within the ATE market and, with Legal Protection Group’s reputation and expertise already in place, I believe that there are endless opportunities for us in the future.” Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, said “I am delighted that Dan has decided to join Legal Protection Group. I always admired his knowledge, experience and professionalism when he worked for Elite and he will be another great asset for our team”.   Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Dan has a strong background in ATE insurance, making him a valuable addition to the team. His appointment will ultimately help to support our growing London business. We welcome him to the Legal Protection Group team.” Dan takes up his role with immediate effect.   You can contact Dan on: Email: [email protected] Mobile: 07879 524254  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Sep 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Dan Quinn has been appointed as ATE Underwriter. Dan is the latest addition to an already impressive team of experienced ATE professionals at Legal Protection Group and he will be based at our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from Elite Insurance, where he was also an ATE Underwriter, Dan has extensive experience dealing with commercial litigation, in particular, insolvency, defamation and professional negligence and clinical negligence. He was also specifically involved in producing diverse schemes ranging from Japanese Knotweed to Scottish clinical negligence cases. Dan has worked for Elite Insurance since 2011, but previously, Dan held various ATE and BTE roles at First Assist and Abbey Legal. Dan's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Dan will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Dan is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Dan said “It is an exciting time to be within the ATE market and, with Legal Protection Group’s reputation and expertise already in place, I believe that there are endless opportunities for us in the future.” Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, said “I am delighted that Dan has decided to join Legal Protection Group. I always admired his knowledge, experience and professionalism when he worked for Elite and he will be another great asset for our team”.   Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Dan has a strong background in ATE insurance, making him a valuable addition to the team. His appointment will ultimately help to support our growing London business. We welcome him to the Legal Protection Group team.” Dan takes up his role with immediate effect.   You can contact Dan on: Email: [email protected] Mobile: 07879 524254  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Sep 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Rob Horner has been appointed as ATE Underwriter and will be working alongside Steve Ruffle and Dan Quinn in our London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from DAS where he was also an ATE underwriter, Rob has gained experience of insuring a wide range of cases including insolvency, defamation and professional negligence disputes. More recently Rob has been closely involved in several competition law cases. Rob has a strong legal background, following completion of his LLB at Coventry University he spent some time working for a leading Midlands Law Practice. Subsequently Rob completed the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) in London and was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 2015. Rob's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to further establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Rob will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Rob is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Rob said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It’s great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert choose Legal Protection Group. Rob has a great understanding of the needs of our brokers, law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance. He will be a great asset to our growing business”.     You can contact Rob on: Email: [email protected] Mobile: 07494 451841

by Sheena Court

Tue 10 Apr 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Rob Horner has been appointed as ATE Underwriter and will be working alongside Steve Ruffle and Dan Quinn in our London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from DAS where he was also an ATE underwriter, Rob has gained experience of insuring a wide range of cases including insolvency, defamation and professional negligence disputes. More recently Rob has been closely involved in several competition law cases. Rob has a strong legal background, following completion of his LLB at Coventry University he spent some time working for a leading Midlands Law Practice. Subsequently Rob completed the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) in London and was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 2015. Rob's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to further establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Rob will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Rob is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Rob said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It’s great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert choose Legal Protection Group. Rob has a great understanding of the needs of our brokers, law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance. He will be a great asset to our growing business”.     You can contact Rob on: Email: [email protected] Mobile: 07494 451841

by Sheena Court

Tue 10 Apr 18 | News
Whilst up in my loft recently repairing some “beast from the East” storm damage, I stumbled upon an old article I had written entitled A New Beginning, which attempted to make some predictions about how a post Jackson reforms world may look. Five years on, and with Lord Justice Jackson now retired, I thought it may be interesting to review the predictions versus reality.Regrettably, the first trend noted post Jackson of personal injury law firms closing is certainly still an ongoing topic. One only has to google “PI law firm closing” to see the terrible damage done to businesses and individuals alike. Law firm consolidation has also continued apace, and whilst good news for those who keep their jobs, it does not guarantee success going forward as a number of mergers have ended in disaster. I didn’t mention ATE insurers closing in the original article, but it’s certainly worth noting that at least four providers have now been put into run off, in the recent past. The initial strong take up of the “standard” PI (RTA and EL) ATE insurance noted has continued, albeit with appropriately lower premiums, some as low as £35 compared to £350 for the same case type pre LASPO. The structure of the overall PI ATE market has changed somewhat, with many cases now being insured via PCC’s (Protected Cell Captives) and not directly with the traditional ATE market. However, the changes due in April 2019 will all but kill the RTA ATE insurance market, and significantly reduce the non-motor pool of risks going forward, so the initial strong take up post Jackson will have run its course by next year, leading to another reduction in work for both law firms and insurers. "It is clear that Clinical Negligence is going to be a more significant part of an ATE insurer’s book going forward' is what I said back in 2013, and there is absolutely no doubt about it, it is. Post LASPO, the average ATE insurer, or ATE MGA’s book of business has been dominated by clinical negligence cases, accounting for circa 80% of written premium.All well and good, except for the fact that the so-called partial ATE premium recovery exemption allowed for this class of claim, has in hindsight, been an unmitigated and total failure. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the exemption proposition were, the fact is, ATE insurers have been, and still are, significantly underwater post Jackson on clinical negligence business. There are a number of reasons for this poor performance that have been previously well documented, and do not need rehearsing again here.Of course, nobody will give two hoots about ATE insurers losing money on clinical negligence business, but historically, insurers were needed both pre and post Jackson to prosecute these cases due to the very high costs involved. This situation may or may not change next year with the proposed new fixed fees being introduced in early 2019, but I imagine some sort of ATE insurance support will still be required in the future, although there has been no mention of it in any FRC proposals so far. Let’s hope they abolish the partial recovery exemption so we all know where we stand with recovering the ATE premium. Finally, I did suggest in my closing paragraph that the reforms had led to a reduction in access to justice for SME’s with small to mid-sized commercial disputes, and that would-be claimants seeking damages of less than £50,000 were likely to be rejected on a financial viability basis, despite having a great case in law.I must confess on this item I was wrong. Post Jackson experience now confirms that even a £50,000 claim is not large enough to make the litigation financials work for such disputes. They really do need to be at the £100,000 level at least for law firms and insurers to even consider taking on a CFA/DBA/ATE basis. This is certainly an area where pre-paid BTE legal expenses insurance would be well worth the investment. By Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Apr 18 | News
Whilst up in my loft recently repairing some “beast from the East” storm damage, I stumbled upon an old article I had written entitled A New Beginning, which attempted to make some predictions about how a post Jackson reforms world may look. Five years on, and with Lord Justice Jackson now retired, I thought it may be interesting to review the predictions versus reality.Regrettably, the first trend noted post Jackson of personal injury law firms closing is certainly still an ongoing topic. One only has to google “PI law firm closing” to see the terrible damage done to businesses and individuals alike. Law firm consolidation has also continued apace, and whilst good news for those who keep their jobs, it does not guarantee success going forward as a number of mergers have ended in disaster. I didn’t mention ATE insurers closing in the original article, but it’s certainly worth noting that at least four providers have now been put into run off, in the recent past. The initial strong take up of the “standard” PI (RTA and EL) ATE insurance noted has continued, albeit with appropriately lower premiums, some as low as £35 compared to £350 for the same case type pre LASPO. The structure of the overall PI ATE market has changed somewhat, with many cases now being insured via PCC’s (Protected Cell Captives) and not directly with the traditional ATE market. However, the changes due in April 2019 will all but kill the RTA ATE insurance market, and significantly reduce the non-motor pool of risks going forward, so the initial strong take up post Jackson will have run its course by next year, leading to another reduction in work for both law firms and insurers. "It is clear that Clinical Negligence is going to be a more significant part of an ATE insurer’s book going forward' is what I said back in 2013, and there is absolutely no doubt about it, it is. Post LASPO, the average ATE insurer, or ATE MGA’s book of business has been dominated by clinical negligence cases, accounting for circa 80% of written premium.All well and good, except for the fact that the so-called partial ATE premium recovery exemption allowed for this class of claim, has in hindsight, been an unmitigated and total failure. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the exemption proposition were, the fact is, ATE insurers have been, and still are, significantly underwater post Jackson on clinical negligence business. There are a number of reasons for this poor performance that have been previously well documented, and do not need rehearsing again here.Of course, nobody will give two hoots about ATE insurers losing money on clinical negligence business, but historically, insurers were needed both pre and post Jackson to prosecute these cases due to the very high costs involved. This situation may or may not change next year with the proposed new fixed fees being introduced in early 2019, but I imagine some sort of ATE insurance support will still be required in the future, although there has been no mention of it in any FRC proposals so far. Let’s hope they abolish the partial recovery exemption so we all know where we stand with recovering the ATE premium. Finally, I did suggest in my closing paragraph that the reforms had led to a reduction in access to justice for SME’s with small to mid-sized commercial disputes, and that would-be claimants seeking damages of less than £50,000 were likely to be rejected on a financial viability basis, despite having a great case in law.I must confess on this item I was wrong. Post Jackson experience now confirms that even a £50,000 claim is not large enough to make the litigation financials work for such disputes. They really do need to be at the £100,000 level at least for law firms and insurers to even consider taking on a CFA/DBA/ATE basis. This is certainly an area where pre-paid BTE legal expenses insurance would be well worth the investment. By Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Apr 18 | News
Legal Protection Group, the specialist Legal Protection Insurance MGA, has launched in Ireland as a joint venture between Legal Protection Group UK and the senior team behind the wholesale division of O’Driscoll O’Neil DAC. Legal Protection Group was formed by a group of well-known legal protection insurance professionals, who shared a vision of how a legal protection company can and should operate. Having launched successfully in the UK in October 2016, the group has partnered with O’Driscoll O’Neil to now bring the benefits of this fresh approach to the Irish market. Commenting on the launch of Legal Protection Group Ireland, Legal Protection Group’s Managing Director Martin Rowan said, “There is a huge opportunity for growth within the Irish Legal Protection market and our objective is to help brokers realise this untapped potential. Until now, there has effectively been only one insurer operating in this sector, but now there is a choice of provider and our research shows very clearly that this new choice will be warmly welcomed by the market.” Working closely with the senior team at O’Driscoll O’Neil, the new products have been designed and developed specifically for the Irish market. We believe that our policies are more flexible and bespoke than perhaps you or your clients are used to. The updated and enhanced covers are underwritten by Inter Hannover, with an AA- security rating, and supported by local claims-handling and telephone legal advice services. In designing our product range, we have listened carefully to the market and we have already successfully started operations in Ireland through a quiet soft-launch at the beginning of January The Legal Protection Group Ireland products include:   - Commercial Legal Protection; - Group and Affinity Protection; - Family Legal Protection; and - Motor Legal Protection.   Legal Protection Group Ireland is also launching a Commercial & Civil Litigation Policy, which provides cover of up to €2.0 million against the risk of an adverse costs award in an unsuccessful legal action. Cover is available from today and we’re sure you will be pleased with the choice, flexibility and the price we can offer. Niall O’Driscoll, Managing Director of O’Driscoll O’Neil, said “We are excited to be able to offer choice to the consumer in a market where it is has been lacking thus far. Legal Protection Group are the ideal partner for us and we look forward to working with them for many years.” To learn more about Legal Protection Group Ireland, please visit our website at www.legalprotectiongroup.ie   Or contact us: Legal Protection Group Ireland Tel: 01 6395844 Email: [email protected]  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Jun 18 | News
Legal Protection Group, the specialist Legal Protection Insurance MGA, has launched in Ireland as a joint venture between Legal Protection Group UK and the senior team behind the wholesale division of O’Driscoll O’Neil DAC. Legal Protection Group was formed by a group of well-known legal protection insurance professionals, who shared a vision of how a legal protection company can and should operate. Having launched successfully in the UK in October 2016, the group has partnered with O’Driscoll O’Neil to now bring the benefits of this fresh approach to the Irish market. Commenting on the launch of Legal Protection Group Ireland, Legal Protection Group’s Managing Director Martin Rowan said, “There is a huge opportunity for growth within the Irish Legal Protection market and our objective is to help brokers realise this untapped potential. Until now, there has effectively been only one insurer operating in this sector, but now there is a choice of provider and our research shows very clearly that this new choice will be warmly welcomed by the market.” Working closely with the senior team at O’Driscoll O’Neil, the new products have been designed and developed specifically for the Irish market. We believe that our policies are more flexible and bespoke than perhaps you or your clients are used to. The updated and enhanced covers are underwritten by Inter Hannover, with an AA- security rating, and supported by local claims-handling and telephone legal advice services. In designing our product range, we have listened carefully to the market and we have already successfully started operations in Ireland through a quiet soft-launch at the beginning of January The Legal Protection Group Ireland products include:   - Commercial Legal Protection; - Group and Affinity Protection; - Family Legal Protection; and - Motor Legal Protection.   Legal Protection Group Ireland is also launching a Commercial & Civil Litigation Policy, which provides cover of up to €2.0 million against the risk of an adverse costs award in an unsuccessful legal action. Cover is available from today and we’re sure you will be pleased with the choice, flexibility and the price we can offer. Niall O’Driscoll, Managing Director of O’Driscoll O’Neil, said “We are excited to be able to offer choice to the consumer in a market where it is has been lacking thus far. Legal Protection Group are the ideal partner for us and we look forward to working with them for many years.” To learn more about Legal Protection Group Ireland, please visit our website at www.legalprotectiongroup.ie   Or contact us: Legal Protection Group Ireland Tel: 01 6395844 Email: [email protected]  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Jun 18 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) today announces a new capacity arrangement with Alwyn Insurance Company Limited. Alwyn Insurance Company Limited (Alwyn) was formed in 2011 to provide delegated capacity on a meaningful basis to Managing General Agents (MGAs). Alwyn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Capital Group Ltd. and carries A+ financial strength rating from A.M. Best Company. Legal Protection Group launched as a MGA in 2016 and provides a full range of Before-the-Event (BTE), Assistance and After-the-Event (ATE) products including commercial and civil ATE policies. Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, said ‘We are extremely pleased that we have secured the support of an insurer that provides A+ financial strength, has a strong desire to build on our existing book of business and achievements to-date and shares our focus of working closely with our broker and solicitor partners. At every stage since our launch we have had the support of some tremendous business partners who saw real value in the experience, enthusiasm, customer service and speed of response we bring to the legal expenses market. We are excited about this new chapter with Alwyn, which will enable us to build on our successful launch and further develop and deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward. To take advantage of the available opportunities, we are recruiting in both our Bristol and London offices to strengthen the service and support we provide to our business partners.”

by Sheena Court

Thu 05 Dec 19 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) today announces a new capacity arrangement with Alwyn Insurance Company Limited. Alwyn Insurance Company Limited (Alwyn) was formed in 2011 to provide delegated capacity on a meaningful basis to Managing General Agents (MGAs). Alwyn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Capital Group Ltd. and carries A+ financial strength rating from A.M. Best Company. Legal Protection Group launched as a MGA in 2016 and provides a full range of Before-the-Event (BTE), Assistance and After-the-Event (ATE) products including commercial and civil ATE policies. Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, said ‘We are extremely pleased that we have secured the support of an insurer that provides A+ financial strength, has a strong desire to build on our existing book of business and achievements to-date and shares our focus of working closely with our broker and solicitor partners. At every stage since our launch we have had the support of some tremendous business partners who saw real value in the experience, enthusiasm, customer service and speed of response we bring to the legal expenses market. We are excited about this new chapter with Alwyn, which will enable us to build on our successful launch and further develop and deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward. To take advantage of the available opportunities, we are recruiting in both our Bristol and London offices to strengthen the service and support we provide to our business partners.”

by Sheena Court

Thu 05 Dec 19 | News
We are pleased to announce the appointment of Darren Weekes to the newly created role of Partnership Development Manager. Darren has over 30 years’ experience in the insurance industry, 25 years of which was working for DAS in Business Development and Partnership Management roles including a senior management role as Head of Broker Partnerships.   Commenting on his appointment, Darren said, “I am delighted to have been invited to join Legal Protection Group.  In just 3 years they have positioned themselves as a serious player in the LEI and Add On product sector and I was very impressed by the future plans that they have. I am excited about being an integral part of their future growth” Neil McDermott joins in the new role of City Underwriter. Neil is also exceptionally experienced having worked for a number of other insurance companies and managing general agents, amongst others: Amicus Legal, DAS, and UK General in product, technical support and underwriting roles on various ancillary and financial loss policies. Prior to joining Legal Protection Group, Neil was involved with developing and launching a personal cyber policy designed for all private individuals with a digital footprint, principally to counter losses arising from the burgeoning risk of economic crime carried out online, as well as costs involved in removing online content of a bullying or defamatory nature and restoring data/device to a functioning state following unauthorised third party access or malware. Neil is thrilled to be joining the Legal Protection Group team and consolidate on the underwriting function with focus on supporting Andy Tomkins and Darren Weekes in the City office.   Neil commented, "The company’s performance since it was formed and future plans impressed me and I look forward to playing my part in growing the profitable portfolio of ancillary insurance business." Darren and Neil join Andy Tomkins, City Broker Manager, in our London office. Andy Westall, Sales Director of Legal Protection Group, said “We are delighted that another two very experienced industry professionals have chosen to join our team. Our current focus is to ensure that we have the right people in place to support our expansions plans for 2020 and the knowledge and experience that both Darren and Neil bring will be central to making this happen. We welcome them both to Legal Protection Group.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 05 Feb 20 | News
We are pleased to announce the appointment of Darren Weekes to the newly created role of Partnership Development Manager. Darren has over 30 years’ experience in the insurance industry, 25 years of which was working for DAS in Business Development and Partnership Management roles including a senior management role as Head of Broker Partnerships.   Commenting on his appointment, Darren said, “I am delighted to have been invited to join Legal Protection Group.  In just 3 years they have positioned themselves as a serious player in the LEI and Add On product sector and I was very impressed by the future plans that they have. I am excited about being an integral part of their future growth” Neil McDermott joins in the new role of City Underwriter. Neil is also exceptionally experienced having worked for a number of other insurance companies and managing general agents, amongst others: Amicus Legal, DAS, and UK General in product, technical support and underwriting roles on various ancillary and financial loss policies. Prior to joining Legal Protection Group, Neil was involved with developing and launching a personal cyber policy designed for all private individuals with a digital footprint, principally to counter losses arising from the burgeoning risk of economic crime carried out online, as well as costs involved in removing online content of a bullying or defamatory nature and restoring data/device to a functioning state following unauthorised third party access or malware. Neil is thrilled to be joining the Legal Protection Group team and consolidate on the underwriting function with focus on supporting Andy Tomkins and Darren Weekes in the City office.   Neil commented, "The company’s performance since it was formed and future plans impressed me and I look forward to playing my part in growing the profitable portfolio of ancillary insurance business." Darren and Neil join Andy Tomkins, City Broker Manager, in our London office. Andy Westall, Sales Director of Legal Protection Group, said “We are delighted that another two very experienced industry professionals have chosen to join our team. Our current focus is to ensure that we have the right people in place to support our expansions plans for 2020 and the knowledge and experience that both Darren and Neil bring will be central to making this happen. We welcome them both to Legal Protection Group.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 05 Feb 20 | News
Shipshape and Bristol Fashion - that's our new Watercraft Legal Expenses cover!     Life on the ocean waves (or indeed the local river or lake!) can be pleasurable, relaxing and calm.  Navigating your way through marine law is somewhat less so!  Marine law is complex and many everyday boating related legal disputes are not covered by a typical boat insurance policy. In the event of a legal dispute, such as disagreements with retailers of goods and providers of services used in connection with the craft, defending criminal proceedings or racing collisions, it is important that your customers have access to the specialist advice and representation that they will need. From canoes to jet skis and dinghies to yachts, we cover all types of leisure craft up to a LOA (average length) of 24.09 metres (79 foot) long on a scheme basis.   With our Watercraft Legal Expenses policy, your customers will benefit from: - Specialist maritime law advice from LA Marine A network of local agents (advocates) in France, Greece, Italy, and Spain – the most common cruising/sailing jurisdictions in the European Union No aggregate limit A-Rated insurance cover Our cover includes all the features and benefits that you would expect from a typical marine policy, including £100k indemnity per claim, access to legal helplines and certain fees in the event of identity theft. Watercraft Legal Expenses  is available as one aggregated net rate applying to all schemes (minimum 100 craft) as an optional add-on or mandatory cover on a boat insurance policy.    Contact us for more information or to arrange a discussion

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Oct 20 | News
Shipshape and Bristol Fashion - that's our new Watercraft Legal Expenses cover!     Life on the ocean waves (or indeed the local river or lake!) can be pleasurable, relaxing and calm.  Navigating your way through marine law is somewhat less so!  Marine law is complex and many everyday boating related legal disputes are not covered by a typical boat insurance policy. In the event of a legal dispute, such as disagreements with retailers of goods and providers of services used in connection with the craft, defending criminal proceedings or racing collisions, it is important that your customers have access to the specialist advice and representation that they will need. From canoes to jet skis and dinghies to yachts, we cover all types of leisure craft up to a LOA (average length) of 24.09 metres (79 foot) long on a scheme basis.   With our Watercraft Legal Expenses policy, your customers will benefit from: - Specialist maritime law advice from LA Marine A network of local agents (advocates) in France, Greece, Italy, and Spain – the most common cruising/sailing jurisdictions in the European Union No aggregate limit A-Rated insurance cover Our cover includes all the features and benefits that you would expect from a typical marine policy, including £100k indemnity per claim, access to legal helplines and certain fees in the event of identity theft. Watercraft Legal Expenses  is available as one aggregated net rate applying to all schemes (minimum 100 craft) as an optional add-on or mandatory cover on a boat insurance policy.    Contact us for more information or to arrange a discussion

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Oct 20 | News
The end of this crazy year is in sight now however legal judgments and key litigation decisions continue unabated.  For this reason, take time out of your busy schedule to sit back, relax and look through the penultimate ATE Matters of 2020 from Legal Protection Group. We start this edition with a look at ‘Waiver by Election’ and its impact in the contract dispute between Delta Petroleum (Caribbean) Ltd v British Virgin Islands Electricity Corporation.  The Disclosure Pilot is back under the spotlight with what appears to be a ‘slap on the wrist’ for both the claimant and defendant in one particular example. An interesting judgment next relating to Part 36 and the entitlement to enhanced relief as stipulated in CPR 36.17. We end this month with two judgments which will be of considerable interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  A lot of people will have been waiting for the outcome as to whether the case of Swift v Carpenter could be appealed given the potential impact on the discount rate.  With refusal by the court, the new discount rate calculation remains although it is understood the defendant may consider another go so watch this space! Last but not least, Belsner v Cam Legal Services is an appeal decision everyone running CFA cases should take particular note of given the potential ramifications. As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk for his invaluable assistance with ATE Matters and please do get in contact with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments or we can be of assistance in any way. ATEMatters November 2020  

by Sheena Court

Thu 12 Nov 20 | News
The end of this crazy year is in sight now however legal judgments and key litigation decisions continue unabated.  For this reason, take time out of your busy schedule to sit back, relax and look through the penultimate ATE Matters of 2020 from Legal Protection Group. We start this edition with a look at ‘Waiver by Election’ and its impact in the contract dispute between Delta Petroleum (Caribbean) Ltd v British Virgin Islands Electricity Corporation.  The Disclosure Pilot is back under the spotlight with what appears to be a ‘slap on the wrist’ for both the claimant and defendant in one particular example. An interesting judgment next relating to Part 36 and the entitlement to enhanced relief as stipulated in CPR 36.17. We end this month with two judgments which will be of considerable interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  A lot of people will have been waiting for the outcome as to whether the case of Swift v Carpenter could be appealed given the potential impact on the discount rate.  With refusal by the court, the new discount rate calculation remains although it is understood the defendant may consider another go so watch this space! Last but not least, Belsner v Cam Legal Services is an appeal decision everyone running CFA cases should take particular note of given the potential ramifications. As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk for his invaluable assistance with ATE Matters and please do get in contact with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments or we can be of assistance in any way. ATEMatters November 2020  

by Sheena Court

Thu 12 Nov 20 | News

by Sheena Court

Thu 04 Nov 21 | News

by Sheena Court

Thu 04 Nov 21 | News
We are pleased to announce that Jonathan Woodcraft has joined LPG to spearhead a unique proposal for the conveyancing market based on technology, long standing relationships and product range. Jonathan brings a wealth of knowledge and experience spanning over 30 years in property, finance and legal markets, including The Woolwich, Bristol & West, and most recently Stewart Title, with which LPG will continue to partner. Jonathan aims to establish a new division for LPG, bringing together complementary products to create a market leader in providing all types of insurance to the conveyancing sector. Commenting on his appointment, Jonathan said “The LPG team impressed me with their focus on providing first class products and their ambitions for growth. Access to their existing product range and newly developed technology is a real game changer for this industry. The team has already demonstrated it has the capability to build a company from the ground up and to join them on this journey is very exciting.” Martin Rowan, CEO said, “Jonathan has exceptional experience and it’s fantastic to see another talented and well-regarded expert choose LPG. Jonathan has a deep understanding of the conveyancing industry and his focus on creating a business that has the needs of the market at its heart will be a great asset to our expanding business.  With innovative features and state of the art technology we are absolutely focused on providing a market leading proposition to solicitors, conveyancers, search companies and their clients.” 

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Nov 22 | News
We are pleased to announce that Jonathan Woodcraft has joined LPG to spearhead a unique proposal for the conveyancing market based on technology, long standing relationships and product range. Jonathan brings a wealth of knowledge and experience spanning over 30 years in property, finance and legal markets, including The Woolwich, Bristol & West, and most recently Stewart Title, with which LPG will continue to partner. Jonathan aims to establish a new division for LPG, bringing together complementary products to create a market leader in providing all types of insurance to the conveyancing sector. Commenting on his appointment, Jonathan said “The LPG team impressed me with their focus on providing first class products and their ambitions for growth. Access to their existing product range and newly developed technology is a real game changer for this industry. The team has already demonstrated it has the capability to build a company from the ground up and to join them on this journey is very exciting.” Martin Rowan, CEO said, “Jonathan has exceptional experience and it’s fantastic to see another talented and well-regarded expert choose LPG. Jonathan has a deep understanding of the conveyancing industry and his focus on creating a business that has the needs of the market at its heart will be a great asset to our expanding business.  With innovative features and state of the art technology we are absolutely focused on providing a market leading proposition to solicitors, conveyancers, search companies and their clients.” 

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Nov 22 | News
Our Products Contact Us
  • BTE Insurance
  • Landlord Legal Protection
  • Landlord Legal and Rent Protection
  • Agent Revenue Protection
  • Residential Freeholder Legal Protection
  • Residential Landlord Emergency Assistance
  • Landlord Buildings and Contents
  • Key Protect
  • Excess Protection
  • Motor Breakdown Assistance (Personal and small commercial {up to 3.5 tonnes GVW})
  • Vehicle Assist(Personal)
  • Early Termination Insurance
  • Guaranteed Asset Protection
  • Private Motor Excess Protection
  • Commercial Legal Protection
  • Commercial Legal Protection Property Owners
  • Trade Association Legal Protection
  • Group and Affinity Legal Protection
  • Family Legal Protection
  • Home Emergency Assistance
  • Home Buyers’ Costs and Home Sellers’ Costs
  • Tenant Contents
  • Park and Leisure Home Legal Protection
  • Student Guarantor Protection
  • Tenant Deposit Legal Protection
  • Watercraft Legal Protection
  • Property Services
  • Title Insurance
  • New policies for Contingent Building Insurance and Environmental cover
  • Home Emergency Assistance
  • Key Protect
  • Home Buyers’ Costs and Home Sellers’ Costs
  • Tenant Contents
  • Excess Protection
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Lender Protection
  • Landlord Buildings Insurance

Legal Protection Group Limited, Trading as LPG, are an appointed representative of Riviera Insurance Services Limited, who are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under Firm Reference Number 786116. You may check this on the Financial Services Register by visiting the FCA website.

LPG is registered in England and Wales (Company Number 10096688). Registered address: 8 Pinkers Court, Gloucester Road, Rudgeway, Bristol BS35 3QH