On behalf of the legal expenses market, I feel I must respond to GH Benson's letter (10 April, Insurance Times) insofar as it relates to a claim that he uses as an example of poor service from an unnamed legal expenses insurer.
Mr Benson accepts that his claim was submitted after the time limit specified in the policy and, furthermore, that he appointed solicitors on terms which had not been agreed with his insurers, which again would, I am sure, be in breach of his policy conditions.
He argues further that these solicitors were appointed on a no-win, no-fee basis and, therefore, the claim was not going to cost the insurer anything. This is not always the case: no-win, no-fee does not mean no risk to the insurer. For example, who would pay the opponent's costs if the claim were lost?
Like any other form of insurance, the policy terms and conditions on an LEI policy are put there for good reason and I am surprised that Mr Benson did not read these, or chose to ignore them.
As a loss adjuster, I wonder how Mr Benson would react if he were instructed to attend to a fire loss only to discover that the fire occurred more than six months ago and the policyholder had attempted to rectify repairs himself. Also on finding these too complex, then instructed and agreed terms with a builder, leaving the builder to submit a claim to the insurer.
I imagine that he would not readily accept the claim on behalf of the insurer.
Sales and marketing manager