I read Nick Starling's letter (Letters, 9 February) and found nothing that reflects anything other than an insurance industry pursuing its primary directive: to cut costs - at all costs.
While I understand the responsibility the insurers have to their shareholders, their best interests do not justify the use of the professional indemnity claimant as the sacrificial lamb.
Yes, Starling throws in ideas of protection for the claimant, speedier settlement and rehabilitation.
But the current system allows for this where there is a will to deliver such.
The insurance industry's strategy to de-skill claims departments, deny claims and see fraud at every turn is not working.
Who says so? The insurance industry's own business partner, a loss adjuster (Chris Ray) in a letter immediately following Starling's (Letters, 9 February).
Ray is critical of the policyholder's likelihood of achieving a fair settlement in a claim with his own insurer.
What chance then for the unrepresented third party?
Motor Accident Solicitors Society