A decade of serious injury collaboration over confrontation

There is a perception that lawyers are argumentative, with many a courtroom drama depicting a spirited solicitor or barrister heading in to battle with his opponent. 

This perception is alive on YouTube, where searching “lawyer” conjures several videos claiming to be able to teach the viewer how to argue like one. 

It would not make such entertaining television if, rather than going head-to-head, the lawyers put their heads together to get the case resolved quickly and efficiently.

They want to get back to the way they were before the negligence, or so far as possible, and early rehabilitation could achieve the best possible recovery.

But that is the real picture in catastrophic injury cases run under the Serious Injury Guide, a joint project between April, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers and some major insurers. The collaboration marks its 10th year this autumn. 

This best practice guide is applied to injury cases valued at more than £250,000 (excluding clinical negligence and asbestos-related disease claims) for the greater result for the injured person, who is at the centre of the process from start to finish. 

It is also not without its advantages for both claimant and defendant representatives.

The objectives are to achieve early liability resolution, maximise rehabilitation opportunities, and gain provision for early interim payments. 

The emphasis is on restitution and redress, rather than focussing on the monetary compensation. 

Not all cases will receive early admissions of liability but the process, through planning meetings, aims to allow issues of disagreement to be parked while others are resolved. 

The common aim remains to attempt dispute resolution as early as is workable. A date for a joint settlement meeting is usually agreed, and then both parties work together towards that date. Participants are required to be flexible, communicative, and aligned in their goal.

The benefits to the injured person should be obvious. 

They want to get back to the way they were before the negligence, or so far as possible, and early rehabilitation could achieve the best possible recovery. 

A better recovery could also mean a reduced final settlement for the insurer to pay. There are financial merits for claimant lawyers too, who have less outlay for running the claim if it moves along swiftly and no proceedings must be issued. 

One Serious Injury Guide signatory had two almost identical cases involving men of similar ages with very similar injuries and prognoses. 

The case which did not run under the guide incurred almost double the work in progress costs. It demonstrates how work can be reduced and efficiencies increased when cases are run under the guide.

Both sides are encouraged to agree on selecting a case manager. But even when a case manager is appointed unilaterally, it is the ethos of the guide that the defendant representative is kept up to date with the progression of rehabilitation. 

Where appropriate, a defendant representative might be invited to come along to a meeting with the case manager, the injured person, and their family. 

This builds relationships between the parties, and enables families to put a face to the organisation which will be paying for their care, support, and needs, rather than perceiving the insurer as a faceless corporation which only supports the wrongdoer. For defendants, the experience humanises the injured person.

There are currently 110 claimant and 14 insurer signatories to the Serious Injury Guide. More are welcome. 

Although anecdotal testimonies indicate that most signatories use the guide in all applicable cases, they are not beholden to follow the guide where it would be inappropriate. A spirit of mutual trust and partnership to work towards the best outcome for the claimant is evident in the feedback received from users.

The Serious Injury Guide is the gold standard for catastrophic injury claims.