rhino phil wrote:this sounds more like this was the Insurers who were attempting 'third party capture' In cases where they accept their insured is at fault they are gambling that a PI claim will be pursued and trying to dispose of the claim quickly and without the need for solicitors whose costs they will then avoid.
Could well be.
rhino phil wrote: A sensible Insurer will err on the side of generosity
No, they won't. As these offers are made without any medical evidence of any injury, they are made blind, and therefore the insurers do not know, nor care, what the claim may be worth. Or perhaps more accurately, yes in the average minor whippy, they would on average end up in front, but the token offers ASSUME the claimant has no significant injury, despite the insurance companies all well knowing that
some claimants will go on to have long-term problems.
rhino phil wrote: some get greedy and try and fob you off with low offers.
Indeed they do. And this is why their romantic overtures to the government, that you can trust them to be fair, are manifest bollox. Along with the reason that they only owe a duty to their shareholders to maximise income, and owe no duty of care to injured victims.
rhino phil wrote: An insurer tried this with me after one of their insureds had rear ended me even after taking my details including that I work for a form of defendant solicitors and work in insurance litigation! Suffice to say their offer was rejected. I wouldnt have pursued my subsequent claim if they hadnt tried to con me with a ridiculous offer
So even defendant lawyers make fake claims for non-existent whippy! (Since as the gov. and ABi tell us, nobody actually suffers whiplash, not really)
