Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email
RSA has insisted its use of a wholly-owned subsidiary to increase the prices of motor accident repairs charged to rival firms is lawful.
It rejected claims by a judge that it had added “fabricated” and other “not reasonably incurred” fees to genuine repair bills, claiming the charges were “legal”.
The company told Post: “RSA takes very seriously any suggestion that it has acted inappropriately and strongly refutes any suggestion that it has acted so. Our model remains legal and compliant and is in line with the Bee vs Jensen case (2006).
“Subrogation is an established element of the UK Insurance industry. When a customer is involved in an accident, the insurance company can ‘stand in the shoes’ of the customer to recover the retail cost of the repair from the person (their insurer) at fault.
“At the heart of this is the desire for insurers to manage claims costs and provide a better deal for customers. Subrogating repairs allows us to drive suppliers to minimise costs, keep control of our expenses, thereby saving our customers money on their premiums.
“However, to ensure that this remains the right approach and to avoid the need for further County Court litigation, we put in train a test case in the High Court in May of this year. In the meantime we have suspended any proceedings currently underway pending the outcome of that case. We reject completely any suggestion that RSA has behaved inappropriately.”
Judge Platt lambasted RSA, making specific allegations against the company for adding to the genuine costs of repair. These were put individually to RSA, but the insurer sent only the above reply.
The Judge said: “The law of damages has never required the victim to adopt any particular course in order to restore his damaged goods to their original state. But it does not permit him to recover whatever costs he chooses to incur.”
Medico Legal News Source: PostOnline
Subscribe to IMG Medico-Legal News by Email
