Showing 1 - 10 of 70
In order to keep the wheels of justice moving, the courts have been hearing cases remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. But, could a remote hearing ever be a suitable platform for fundamental dishonesty allegations?
The global pandemic took us by surprise and we’ve had to adjust quickly to new ways of working and living. However, whilst the rest of us were adapting to the “new norm” others were using the opportunity to continue to advance dishonest claims.
Our latest thinking into the insurance impacts arising from the ongoing crisis is offered against the Office for National Statistics having confirmed that the UK economy shrank by 20.4% in April, the largest monthly contraction on record.
In recent months, COVID-19 has led to a fundamental shift in the way we work. Millions of office workers are working from home or adopting flexible working arrangements on a daily basis. Meet-and-greet opportunities are completed over emails. Team meetings are conducted over video calls. This will be the “new normal” for a number of office workers in the foreseeable future.
On 23 March MedCo temporarily lifted the ban on the use of remote examinations on claimants for the purpose of obtaining MedCo reports.
Whilst there are very many genuine whiplash injury claims, it is also an area which is subject to repeated exploitation by fraudsters.
In mid-March, as the UK was reacting to the pandemic and implementing social distancing measures and advising you to work from home, claims farmers had their minds on one thing - coronavirus claims.
We are delighted to confirm the promotion of thirteen lawyers to our partnership across practice areas including commercial, employment and healthcare, as well as specialist areas of insurance and liability that include cyber, property and construction, professional liability, travel, abuse and fraud. Eight of those promoted are based in the UK, with four in the US and one in Australia. Our worldwide partner count is now 264.
Investigations analyst Caroline Caine talks us through one of her (un)typical days at Kennedys.
Case review 2020-03-06
In this case, the claimant’s personal injury claim for damages in excess of £100,000 was dismissed as the judge did not believe the claimant’s version of events. Following further submissions a finding of fundamental dishonesty was made and the claimant was ordered to pay 75% of the first defendant’s costs despite the claimant establishing that they had breached their duty of care.