Legal Expenses Cover

dgadee said:
They will really only act for you in court if there is a very high possibility of you winning your case. Since there is doubt in very many situations (most?) they will not act. I had a matter where I tried to use the legal insurance. The solicitor gave a list of cases which undermined my position. I produced a more recent case report which fully supported my position. She said, "I knew about that one", but I am pretty sure she didn't. It didn't change her mind anyway. I could have got counsel's opinion to outrank hers but decided not to bother.

My feeling was that she was on the insurance panel for that firm and preferred to act for the firm rather than for the client (me). But after all, I was not her client.
Click to expand...
Why were you not the client?

Was it not your insurance and premium add-on for legal cover that you are talking about?

Whatever the incident (eg someone was trying to sue you for something - scratching their fender or whatever) is the legal cover not there to help you defend or attack whatever the solicitor thinks (guesses) the outcome may be ?
 
Cerebus said:
I have never read the small print, but for an extra£25 I would hope I had some help if I needed legal action.
Click to expand...
Over a lifetime that becomes thousands of pounds, if you multiply that up for home, boat, car insurance you will be several thousand pounds.
 
This information from Visicover may be useful to the OP:

Unfortunately, the company through whom we arranged Marine Legal Protection withdrew the product from the market in early 2025. This meant we were unable to offer it on any new or renewal quotes created from 01/03/2025 onwards, although those policyholders who already had the cover in place would still be protected by it until the next renewal date of the policy.
 
billskip said:
He already knows that that's why he posed the question here ..more wasted pixels...
.......
Click to expand...
You should put as much effort into helping him as you do into trying to be clever or just rude. He asked in the OP why his insurer has stopped - the asked is likely their supplier stopped, as almost all legal insurance is underwritten by specialist firms not the main provider.
 
ylop said:
You should put as much effort into helping him as you do into trying to be clever or just rude. He asked in the OP why his insurer has stopped - the asked is likely their supplier stopped, as almost all legal insurance is underwritten by specialist firms not the main provider.
Click to expand...
I am helping him by trying to point out the time wasting posts you make, No I don't know another insurance provider that will satisfy his needs, but others have quoted some maybe he should try, I hope he is successful.
As for...
ylop said:
Grow up
Click to expand...
It seems you are the one being rude
 
The numb of of issue is whether any such cover exists for marine but-if the FCA thinks the loss ratio is too low(ie not enough claims) they will heavily lean on insurer to remove product (Without an outright ban of course) so with the extra tests as to consumer value it becomes uneconomic to provide . This is why car hire excess was virtually killed yet for those who claimed it had value but clearly not enough did claim. I don’t know why Visicover withdrew but my suspicion is from regulatory perspective it failed the FCA tests so they dropped. Might be an explanation as to lack of offerings in marine BTE covers.
 
nevis768 said:
Legal cover is an absolute rip off, they will sneak out of doing absolutely anything.....
Click to expand...
They will give advice about how best to handle a problem and access to online advice and forms for methods of dealing with various problems you encounter. A chat with one of their solicitors is included with some policies. As solicitors charge hundreds of pounds an hour for that sort of a chat there can be value in that.

If there is a possible good prospect the insurer will typically require a payment - £250 or something of the sort - but that can be cost effective.

If you prefer to use a solicitor of your own choice they will not typically pay your solicitor at a rate that your solicitor is likely to agree to. Solicitors are the most expensive and dishonest group of people I have come across. All too often people hand them their assests and the solicitors take it for themselves.

The legal cover can protect you from another solicitor.
 
Cerebus said:
Why were you not the client?

Was it not your insurance and premium add-on for legal cover that you are talking about?

Whatever the incident (eg someone was trying to sue you for something - scratching their fender or whatever) is the legal cover not there to help you defend or attack whatever the solicitor thinks (guesses) the outcome may be ?
Click to expand...
It is to do with repeat players. My relationship with the solicitor was a one off, whilst their relationship with the insurer was multiple times. It is the same as barrister/solicitor and punter. The barrister wants a happy punter so that the punter thinks the solicitor is good and the solicitor will use that barrister again. A barrister will therefore never criticise a solicitor in front of the solicitor's client because the solicitor is his client. I researched this decades ago and co-authored a book on the topic. Things have changed a bit since solicitor firms started to use inhouse litigators, but I imagine not changed too much.

Yes, I tried to use the legal cover with my house insurance. First of all, I used their phone line and that was the start of the trouble: they gave me completely wrong advice. I was eventually sued (and won) and the judge asked me why I got into that situation - bad legal advice I told him.

A success rate of 60% was mentioned above and makes it all sound very scientific, but I would guess a happy insurer is one where they have a solicitor acting for them whose 60% is higher than other solicitor's 60%. And going to law is the most unpredictable thing in the world: note how many cases settle on the doors of the courtroom and each side begins to lose a bit of confidence in their argument. The entire civil legal system operates on the basis that most will settle, and very few will go into court. If they all went into the courtroom, it would be centuries before they were all dealt with.

Ps: if you go to the courts as Christmas is coming up, you will see lots of activity. Litigants - say with industrial/accident injuries - will be negotiating with the opposing side over compensation. The insurance companies love that time of year - there is financial pressure on people and they will accept lower settlements than at other times of the year. I used to tell first year law students that law was a business. They probably didn't believe me, but they would if they ever went into practice.
 
Last edited:
Cerebus said:
Is that based upon experience (whether first hand or second hand) and is it also useless for house insurance as well as boat insurance?

I have never read the small print, but for an extra£25 I would hope I had some help if I needed legal action.
Click to expand...
Yes. personal experience of Temple and Ralli solicitors, legal insurance provided with an insurance policy. I will be making a complaint to the law society in due course. They basically tried to avoid any type of work at all costs, and at every stage from initial assessment on. I think what you get with these policy add ons is more or less the same as no win no fee. It's a scam, you pay but get nothing, good earner for them.
 
nevis768 said:
I think what you get with these policy add ons is more or less the same as no win no fee. It's a scam, you pay but get nothing, good earner for them.
Click to expand...
In terms of you pursuing a claim against another I think that is about right. The one area it MIGHT be helpful is if you are subject to criminal prosecution where (at least some) policies will fund a defence - I don’t believe they can insist you plead guilty.
 
60% prospect of success in a claim against a third party will be the level the insurers solicitors are expected to confirm. Clearly sometimes insureds solicitors are used but naturally insurer tend to more sceptical of advice from a non panel firm due to lack of knowledge of expertise in short. Often in such cases of course the defendants are also insured and its defendant insurer denying coverage which leads to dispute as the third party has little skin in game I doubt in uk you find defence costs in crim cases-you really don’t want as insurer the hassle of potential negative brand publicity in defending etc. I suggest.
 
ashtead said:
I doubt in uk you find defence costs in crim cases-you really don’t want as insurer the hassle of potential negative brand publicity in defending etc. I suggest.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure exactly what you were trying to write but it sounds like you think UK insurers won’t cover criminal defence costs? Given it’s one of the main marketing points of a number of the products you’d be furious if they didn’t. In fact they regularly do - but who funds your legal costs is generally not a matter of public record (in the UK at least). I don’t think “we provided the service we promised” is the reputational risk you think.
 
Perhaps - as important as who pays - if you are on a criminal charge an important thing is for the case to be heard in front of a jury. More chance of getting off with your crime. And be the first case they hear - before they get case hardened.
 
I had a claim and used Legal Expenses Cover. There were two tall mature trees which my neighbour planted 20 years ago next to my garage, My building is on my boundary, when I say next to my building, he dug a hole next to my building and planted a willow tree in it. There are cracks in my walls, During Storm Arwen I could see these trees moving violently in the wind and when I put my finger on the crack I could feel movement.

With Legal Expenses Cover you have to get an Expert Witness and pay for it your self. In my case I had a report done by a Chartered Surveyor, but his report was not strong enough. he put "The cracking may be associated with the tree on the other side of the wall" Had he said "In my opinion the tree caused the damage" they may have decided to take it to court.
As it was my Insurance Company appointed a firm of Solicitors who spent £5800 of the insurance companies money with letter going back & forth to the owner of the trees who said it was not his trees which caused the damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

donm
Fuel tank leak
Replies
16
Views
427
donm
donm

Share this page

Top