This site uses cookies.

PI Discount Rate: ABI vs Government - Qamar Anwar, Managing Director, First4Lawyers

30/09/19. It must have come as a nasty shock to the Association of British Insurers (ABI) when the government didn’t do what it was told over the discount rate. After all, if the last decade has taught us anything, it is that the ABI gets its way on personal injury reform.

While insurers were busy releasing millions of pounds in reserves on the basis that the -0.75% rate set in February 2017 would rise to 0% at the very least, one of David Gauke’s last actions as Lord Chancellor was to put the interests of injured people to the forefront of his mind and set it at -0.25% instead.

Any higher and the danger of claimants losing out was too great, according to his statement of reasons. It appears that the Government Actuary recommended a figure of 0.25%, but on that basis there was only a 50:50 chance of a claimant being fully compensated, and Mr Gauke considered this too great a risk of under-compensation.

The ABI are angry, while the likes of Direct Line and Hastings have had to bolster their reserves (£17m and £8.4m respectively).

The accompanying impact assessment said insurers would save £230-320m as a result of changing the new rate, but the ABI said this “completely misrepresents insurance market pricing and reserving” that followed the old rate being set.

It was particularly sore about Ministry of Justice “guidance” to the stock market in September 2017 that it expected a new rate to be set at 0-1%, which the ABI said ensured that lawyers did not adopt the -0.75% rate in practice. As a result, it said, premiums have fallen and the majority of personal injury cases have settled at a rate between 0% and 1%, “as the government intended”, and so there would be no savings to pass on.

But let’s look at that more closely. In September 2017, the then Lord Chancellor said: “While it is difficult to provide an estimate, based on currently available information if the new system were to be applied today the rate might be in the region of 0% to 1%.”

Minister Lord Keen told the Justice Select Committee soon after that 0-1% was “an assessment of the direction of travel of the rate… I emphasise that it was not intended as an estimate of what the rate will be”.

This could not have been much further from a guarantee. So, insurers that reserved on that basis were complacent. You can see why they would assume the rate would rise substantially, given the speed with which the review of how it was set was initiated in the first place in 2017, but there are no grounds for sympathising with them.

Though the ABI is still considering a possible judicial review, my guess is that it will be hard to get off the ground – could it really be said that Mr Gauke’s decision was so unreasonable and based on no evidence that it must be overturned?

You can be sure that the complaints will go on, and indeed intensify in the run-up to the next review in five years’ time, but at least we have the luxury of certainty until then – it’s a rare commodity in the personal injury world right now.

But those protecting claimants shouldn’t get too giddy – the rate was set under the new methodology introduced by the Civil Liability Act, meaning it was judged on the basis of the typical claimant putting their compensation into a low-risk investment portfolio.

The actuarial assessment showed that, had the previous methodology been retained – setting the rate with reference to a very low-risk investment portfolio of index-linked government gilts – it would have to be changed to “around -1.5% or even lower”.

So claimants are still worse off, but just not as much as they could have been.

Qamar Anwar
Managing Director

Image ©

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.