Further discount applied

Last week’s announcement of a new process for setting the discount rate applied to serious injury compensation did not come as quite the surprise that the sudden hike in March did, and the proposals seem targeted on the middle ground between insurers and those representing severely injured accident victims. ARAG’s Product Development Manager Lesley Attu takes a closer look at the announcement.

Liz Truss sent the insurance industry into a tailspin a little over six months ago, when she announced a change to the ‘discount rate” from 2.5% to -0.75%. Share prices dropped, premiums were hiked and the insurers’ PR machines went into somewhat unseemly overdrive, demanding that the ‘crazy’ decision to ensure that people with catastrophic injuries should be adequately compensated, be urgently reviewed.

It may not have come about quite as quickly as some would have liked, but the MoJ’s proposals for a new mechanism to set the discount rate seem designed to strike a compromise. If Lord Chancellor David Liddington’s prediction that the new system would currently generate a rate between 0% and 1%, then it could fall very close to the mid-point between the -0.75% that so outraged the ABI and the 2.5% that it lobbied and fought so hard and for so long to preserve.

The MoJ says it will maintain a 100% compensation rule so that claimants should receive full compensation for the loss caused by the wrongful injury, and not any more, nor any less. It has accepted that the existing legislation governing how the rate is set is unrealistic and could result in awards that significantly overcompensate claimants.

The consequence, it claims, is that the NHS and other public sector bodies can be adversely affected and insurance premiums are inflated.

The MoJ has also acknowledged that injury victims are likely to be more risk averse than ordinary, prudent investors but that “low risk” rather than “very low risk” investments would represent a fairer benchmark. 

Primary legislation is necessary and, once it is passed, the discount rate will be set by the Lord Chancellor, who will take advice from a panel of independent experts. The panel will be chaired by the Government Actuary and will include four other members who will bring experience as an actuary, an investment manager, an economist and a consumer investments expert. HM Treasury will continue to be a statutory consultee for each review, which will take place every three years.

The panel will still be able to set different rates for different types of case, but the principles behind how the rate is set will be set out in the legislation.

So far, the Lord Chancellor’s news has been received more enthusiastically by the insurance industry (and its investors) than those representing injured victims, but only time will tell if the new rate setting mechanism will prove fairer or not.

Make that prospect list and then make it happen!

Now is a good time for insurance salesmen and saleswomen around the land to look down the funnel at the pipeline and see where the new business is coming from.

I have a book of existing business so the first effort is to ensure that this is retained. The problem is that you never will manage to keep all of it. Businesses close or are acquired. People move on and new people with different priorities move in. A book of business will always decline without sales input.

However, your existing book of business is also a great source of new revenue. You need to ask yourself: Do you handle all of their business? Can they recommend you to someone else? As always, diligent efforts will prove to be beneficial.

On the other hand you will also need to target a completely new set of customers to create or renew your database of prospects. Here are a first few steps:

• Define: Your area, your products and what your company wants to achieve.
• Research: Invest the time upfront to save it later down the line by building a comprehensive list of potential contacts with names, job titles, contact details and any other useful information
• Refine: Ensure that your data is clean and remove out of date information. This exercise is as good as any excuse to get in touch with people and will help you to prioritise your list.
• Verify: Does your sales manager agree with your list? Yes? Good! Let’s get on with it.

Unfortunately there is no short cut. You must make contact, you must pursue. Nobody likes it but it is just something that has to be done.

Two further thoughts:

• Don’t outsource prospecting. It doesn’t work!
• Now and then enquiries come to you. Jump on them.

Broker feedback instigates BTE sales expansion and restructure

Expansion of our innovative product range, ever growing client base and beating sales targets year on year provides the perfect conditions for BTE sales to reshape the team structure. From a team of two five year ago, headed by Andy Talbot, today it  boasts eight field sales and office based personnel.

In March, Matt Warren was appointed Broker Business Manager.  He moved into the role five years after he joined ARAG as a Business Development Executive.

With a long history of experience in the legal expenses industry, including line management roles he accepted the challenge to drive the broker sales team forward over the coming years. Andy Talbot, Head of Sales comments: “Matt has been with the company practically from the start and has excelled in generating business from brokers in the South of England. His new role makes him additionally responsible for the UK-wide broker facing development team.”

More recently in August, ARAG further strengthened their sales team when Chris French joined the team, taking on the role of Broker Account Handler.

In this newly created position, Chris is responsible for supporting the Business Development Executives, providing office-based support for brokers, monitoring customer satisfaction and also be accountable for his own panel of brokers.

Broker Business Manager, Matt Warren comments, “At ARAG we respond quickly to customer feedback and the addition of Chris to the team proves our commitment to continually benchmarking our performance and strengthening where required, resulting in an enhanced service to our customers.”

It doesn’t stop there. We are positive that we have the relevant expertise, quality product offerings and high level of service required to continue to attract high calibre ‘household’ names. As such we are expanding our Corporate Sales function and expect further insurers and underwriting agencies to work with us in the near future.

To keep up to date with us and discuss your needs, please visit Andy Talbot, Matt Warren and Jon Layton on Thursday 13 September at EXPO South, Ascot - stand 7.

Added value products – getting it right

Having run an insurance brokerage in the past, I still remember the regular letters from my motor insurance providers telling me that they were reducing my motor commission. As income from that source was under constant downward pressure, it was only natural that you would examine all of your options for maintaining or even boosting income. Therefore, the ancillary products which sat alongside the main policy became of critical importance to balancing the books.

The days of having an all-inclusive price for the main policy and all of the additional add-on products, such as legal expenses, are over. Nowadays, it is common sense that customers should know how their insurance premiums are made up.

Mandatory commission disclosure did not happen but high margins are causing concern among our betters. The FSA is now on the case and no doubt their successor will follow suit, so now is a good time to make sure your house is in order.

Here are a few thoughts to be going on with:

1. Optional add-on insurance: State this clearly and price it separately
2. Compulsory add-on insurance: Clearly point this out to the client
3. Preferred provider(s) for add-on insurance: Think carefully if the sale is advised or non-advised and reflect this in your terms of business
4. Mis-selling scandals: Avoid this by backing up your add-on insurance with a ‘demands and needs statement’
5. Documentation: Ensure that your clients receive the correct documentation for the policy they have bought
6. Margins: Consider carefully what a reasonable margin would be
7. Find out more: For further advice, facts and figures on selling optional add-ons read the FSA report: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/factsheet_extras.pdf

Ultimately, we should all consider if optional add-on products are genuinely useful for the client and not just a vehicle to increase revenue. I used to think to myself, would I sell this to my mother? If so, at what price?

If revenue from commission and optional extras is not enough, there is always the administration fee. But that is a whole other subject….

John Gray, Corporate Development Executive
Find out more about ARAG legal insurance products

A round-up of responses to the Jackson Review Consultation

Valentine’s Day 2011, normally a day of romance but for ARAG and many other organisations and companies it signalled the end of the consultation period for the Ministry of Justice’s Proposals for reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales.

The proposals are based on recommendations from Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs (December 2009), in which he puts forward “a coherent package of interlocking reforms, designed to control costs and promote access to justice”. Some of the recommendations contained in the consultation paper include:

• Introduction of qualified one way cost shifting
• Abolishing the recoverability of after-the-event insurance (ATE) premiums and success fees
• Increasing general damages by 10%

The responses from across the industry have been submitted and it is now a waiting game to see how the government proceeds. In the meantime, this blog summarises a selection of the responses.

• Consumer Justice Alliance (CJA): The CJA describe the proposals as “misguided and ill-considered”, as they feel that they will “ultimately hinder the ability of injured victims to seek fair and reasonable access to justice”. More specifically, the CJA believe that it would be unfair to shift costs onto the injured victim and worry that capping success fees will mean it is not “commercially viable” for law firms to take cases with lower prospects of success. They also add that “there is no alternative that provides the certainty for claimants or defendants that a robustly regulated ATE market does”. Read more...


• Legal Expenses Insurance Group (LEIG): As laid out by Tony Baker, LEIG’s director, "the LEIG response will to preserve access to justice by putting forward practical alternatives to Government proposals while delivering significant and proportionate cost savings." Reiterating that there is only a ‘perceived’ compensation culture; the group propose a revised ATE system that will “control claimants’ and defendants' costs, maintaining access to justice, reducing unmeritorious claims, solving the disbursement conundrum, and preserving the ATE market”. Read more...
  
• Independent panel of law academics: Reported on the Law Society Gazette website, an independent panel of law academics described the proposals as ‘”misleading and inconsistent with a fundamental principle of civil justice.” They point out that they “would reduce the availability of legal services to injured persons, and benefit defendants at the expense of the injured.” Ultimately, the panel recommend that the “government should reject Jackson’s key proposal to allow lawyers to recover success fees from an injured person’s damages.” Read more...


• Medical Defence Union (MDU): According to Post Online the MDU are backing the Ministry of Justice proposals to reform civil litigation costs, claiming that they will “make the civil justice system fairer but will not impact a patient's access to justice.” Representing medical professionals, the MDU state that they “wholeheartedly” support the proposals that tackle “excessive and disproportionate costs, without affecting the ability of patients to seek compensation when they have been negligently harmed.” Read more...
  
• Association of British Insurers (ABI): The ABI is backing Jackson’s proposals stating that it is “time to put the brakes on the legal costs gravy train that is costing UK consumers £2.7 million every day.” They describe how, in their opinion, “high legal costs are at the heart of a compensation system that is too slow, too complex and fails too many genuine claimants.” The ABI believe that Jackson’s proposals will “deliver faster, fairer, more cost-effective compensation and care to those who need it.” Read more...
  
• Access to Justice Action Group (AJAG): “Access to justice for ordinary people will be severely curtailed by the proposals” reports AJAG’s press release which outlines its response. Citing their consumer survey, the AJAG Co-ordinator notes that “the biggest fear people have when enforcing their rights is the risk of legal costs.” Therefore they present a “comprehensive package that both maintains access to justice and helps keep costs down.” Read more...

As a member of the LEIG and CJA, ARAG of course support their responses to the consultation. However, with the view that the proposals will negatively impact access to justice ARAG also submitted their own response.

• ARAG maintain abolishing success fee recoverability would “have a catastrophic effect on injured victims” as “any deduction of damages would result in a victim receiving an unfair settlement”.


• As an ATE insurer ARAG know first-hand how valuable this cover is to claimants and have serious doubts that qualified one way cost shifting will “be sufficient to remove the other side’s costs risk.” They point out that insurance will still be needed to plug the gap but that few insurers could “respond to providing such limited forms of cover.” Additionally, the premium may have to increase and it will still be taken from the claimant’s damages producing “a significant barrier to taking legal action.”


• On unmeritorious claims, ARAG note that “ATE insurance acts as a significant filter on unmeritorious claims”, with ARAG declining “approximately 2/3rds of all individual quotes”.


• In response to the proposal to increase general damages by 10% to balance out the costs deducted, ARAG cite the 1999 Law Commission report that describes general damages as “already too low”. They therefore back plans for an increase but not at the expense of abolishing recoverability of success fees and ATE premiums.


• Regarding qualified one way cost shifting, ARAG state that it “would create a significant element of uncertainty and the likely prospect of satellite litigation.” Furthermore, ATE insurance would not be “available to protect those risks that would remain by virtue of the qualified rules” and will therefore deter genuine claimants from bringing valid claims and encourage more unmeritorious claims.