A short article in yesterday’s Guardian caught my eye (Let’s not add insult to personal injury: 20.2.12). It wasn’t the author’s commentary on David Cameron’s recent “Insurance Summit” that attracted my attention (see, Laura Johnson’s PIBLAWG piece a week ago). It wasn’t the reporting of the statistics, although it has to be admitted that these are eye-popping (the CRU apparently reports a 52% increase in reporting of motor personal injury claims – up to 790,999 claims in 2010/11. The reported statistics are not consistent, but everyone seems to agree that there has been an increase in claims and, er/um, the increase has been massive: can we believe that all of these claims are entirely genuine?) Instead, my eye was drawn to the following, “The practice of insurers making a compensation offer to injured people before they have even had a proper medical examination has become more widespread, and they are trying hard to get to third parties quickly and settle their claims before they have gone to a solicitor for independent advice. This all encourages people to have a go. Why, instead, have insurers not challenged in court claims they believe to be bogus? Interestingly, one outcome of the Downing Street summit was a commitment that they will. [emphasis added by me]” It remains to be seen whether the insurers’ “commitment” proves to be real, but we probably all know why such claims are not contested to trial. First, by the time that a modest whiplash claim comes to Court, the costs will usually have outstripped by a considerable margin the amount that is at stake in the claim itself: an obvious reason why insurers will instead seek to settle claims early – even those that are believed to be bogus (indeed, contesting a bogus or fraudulent claim will generate greater costs than taking issue with discrete aspects of a claim believed to be genuine). The problem, of course, with paying Danegeld of this kind is that it simply encourages more claims – as the statistics referred to above make clear. It also removes work from solicitors, although insurers probably won’t lose any sleep over this. Second, it is not easy to satisfy a Court that a claim is bogus; most Judges will apply – whether or not this is acknowledged – a Hornal v Neuberger Products  1 QB 247 approach to any allegation that a claim is bogus/fraudulent and will require a quantity of cogent evidence in order to find such allegation proved. Some medical expert witnesses are adept at finding a whiplash injury in factual circumstances where it would be surprising (at least to the lay person) that a Claimant had sustained any injury at all. Where such medical evidence is available, it is not easy for the Defendant to challenge this without incurring speculative costs. The result is that, by a default process, the claim will succeed/be settled. Third, it has to be said (on the finest anecdotal evidence) that on occasions the Courts have encouraged questionable claims. One is reminded of the increasing volume of highway tripping claims (some decades ago); the advancing tide was only retarded when the higher Courts started to dismiss these claims and provided guidance on what needed to be proved in order for the Claimant to succeed. If the Judiciary had been less credulous as to whiplash then we might all – genuine Claimants and insurers alike – have been in a happier position. If the Guardian piece is to be believed, we seem now to be reaching a position where only the bravest insurer would challenge a whiplash injury claim at trial; it will be interesting to see whether recent Government action will make any difference.