The legal fraternity was on edge as the Supreme Court was to make a ruling on the 24th of February, 2024 in the case of mixed-injury claims valuation. The case of Hassam &Anor vRabot&Anor impacted thousands of lives and future claims, especially the contentious whiplash injuries. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants anticipated the verdict because it was capable of revolutionizing the personal injury claims market the effects of which would be felt widely.
The primary area of dispute was the methodology to be adopted in ascertaining the value of the claims made through the OIC portal. This particular portal is designed to facilitate the management of whiplash claims which are under a tariff regime. However, problems arise when the claimants sustain other injuries that are not covered by this tariff. This ruling is especially important as approximately two-thirds of cases in the OIC portal are cases of 'mixed injury'.
As for the defendants, the ABI stated that all PSLA should be recoverable for both tariff and non-tariff injuries only through the tariff award. This would further cut down pay-outs for non-whiplash injuries which might help insurance companies to save thousands of pounds. However, the side of the claimant advocates such as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society prefer a more complex valuation method that would involve the assessment of each of the injuries separately while at the same time subtracting any overlaps.
The Court of Appeal previously adopted this claimant-friendly approach, with the majority holding that each injury should be valued under the relevant scheme or tariff. They proposed that the total compensation should only be limited in areas of overlap. However, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, dissented, arguing that the Civil Liability Act 2018 supported the defendants’ arguments.
In preparation for the Supreme Court case, the Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) produced a report on the problems faced by claimants, particularly those who are unrepresented. They noted that most of the claimant law firms shut down after the beginning of the OIC in 2021, therefore, resulting in justice deserts.
The ACSO executive director, Matthew Maxwell Scott, said that there might be consequences of the ruling in favor of the defendants. He warned that if more claimant law firms closed, consumers would be left high and dry without sufficient representation. This is also true for personal injury attorney Los Angeles who practices in a challenging environment as well. They have argued that such rulings could deter the victims from seeking justice, which adds to the difficulties they encounter.
The stakes were high. If the Supreme Court were to rule in favour of the defendants, insurers would be able to get more savings that they could pass to the consumers. However, ACSO countered that these could translate to higher insurer profits since the Ministry of Justice failed to factor mixed-injury claims in the analysis of the impact of the reforms.
A claimant-friendly ruling, on the other hand, could have led insurers to seek further amendments to the legislation such as raising the small claims track limit or changing the tariff relating to non-whiplash claims. This could involve new primary legislation, which would represent a significant change to the nature of personal injury law in the UK.
The ABI concentrated on the financial implications of the current state of affairs. Since the formation of the OIC, there has been a decrease in the number of motor personal injury claims from 653,983 in 2019 to 352,230 in 2023 which is the lowest. However, the frequency of mixed-injury claims has risen, which could be due to the modification in the value of whiplash claims under the tariff.
However, data collected by ACSO from MROs reveal that the trend is not as steep as insurers would like the public to believe. Another MRO revealed the average number of non-whiplash injuries per report rose by 8.3%, which is consistent with the overall reduction in the value of whiplash-only claims.
The legal community was divided. ABI's Mark Shepherd also pointed out that the frequency of mixed injury claims has also risen and it erases the intended cost savings of whiplash reforms. However, Andrew Wild from First4InjuryClaims noted that the claimants have been facing more confusion and delays after the reforms; therefore, the Court of Appeal's decision should be upheld for clarity and fairness.
Personal injury attorneys practicing in the Los Angeles area who have experience in injury legal cases noted similar trends in their area. They argued that all the injuries must be fairly compensated no matter the level of challenge and complication of the case since this would ensure the public's confidence in the legal system and give justice to all the victims.
When the Supreme Court was to announce the judgment, the result was keenly observed not only in the UK but across the globe among legal personalities. The ruling could have assisted in determining how mixed-injury claims should be handled while considering the interests of the claimants, insurers, and the whole justice system. The legal fraternity holds its breath for a judgment that may alter the course of personal injury law for the next few years.