hand signing document Home | Services | Services for you | Personal Injury | Personal injury claim case studies | The case for case handlers

The case for case handlers

21 May 2009

Shoosmiths’ personal injury team case handlers do some exceptional claims management and resolution work.

Shoosmiths’ personal injury team case handlers do some exceptional claims management and resolution work.  But sometimes client’s are not keen to have a case handler manage their own or a relative’s claim.

Mr X, whose daughter (Miss X) was involved in a car accident, was at first reluctant to have case handler Paul Darby look after her claim.  But the excellent service provided by Paul, who has been at Shoosmiths for three years, completely changed Mr X’s views. To the extent that he wrote this email to Paul’s team leader, Stephanie Langdon-Goff:

"Just under a year ago I spoke to you as the point of contact regarding the accident that my daughter was involved in.

You acted in the absence of Paul Darby, and initially I requested that you handle my case without ever having spoken to him. After some discussion, I reluctantly allowed Paul to become the case handler.

It is human nature that some decisions we make are the right ones, and some, unfortunately are not. I am, however, always the first to admit when I am wrong.

I am pleased to report that my concerns about accepting Paul as our representative in this matter were completely unfounded.

I write to you now to commend the professionalism that Paul has shown throughout this whole sorry affair. He has had some colossal stumbling blocks to scale.

He has shown an exemplary and tenacious attitude, and has left no stone unturned, resulting in a resounding victory on behalf of my daughter. 

Paul has shown the utmost respect for our situation and treated us with every courtesy, for which he should be applauded.

He has now achieved a successful conclusion to this saga, which will be closed on receipt of the monies from the third party insurers.

To that end, I felt that it was only right and proper for me to write to you as his team leader, and ask you to pass on our thanks and gratitude from both my daughter and myself."

There is much debate about the term 'case handler', and how it manages to create negative perceptions in the minds of the public.  Controversial or not, it is a job title that masks high levels of skill, experience, and numerous qualifications, and which involves often complex litigation and court work.  For an idea of exactly what a case handler does, please see below Paul Darby’s own account of his clients case:

Summary

Miss X was correctly proceeding along a main road when the third party pulled into her lane of traffic causing a collision. Our client sustained a whiplash injury to her neck and back, and a soft tissue injury to her right shoulder.

What we did

We were informed during the initial call to the third party’s insurers that liability was in dispute. We advised the client accordingly, and requested allegations of negligence from our opponents. We also had details of three witnesses, two of whom returned their questionnaires providing statements which were most favourable to the client, and confirming that the third party had indeed pulled into our client’s lane when there was no room for him to do so.

Authority was provided by the client to discuss matters with her father (Mr X).

The witness evidence was disclosed to the third party’s insurers, who advised us that their insured was alleging the witnesses were known to our client. I discussed this with Mr X, and obtained statements of truth from the client and both witnesses, confirming that they did not know each other prior to the collision.

A medical appointment was arranged for 5 August 2008, and medical evidence was received on 13 August. This confirmed that our clients back injury had resolved within two months of the collision, but that the injuries to her neck and right shoulder would not resolve until up to six months post-accident.

The medical evidence was relayed to the client, who agreed with the report, and also agreed to it being disclosed to our opponents.

Following receipt of our medical evidence, the third party’s insurers made an offer, which was rejected by our client on my advice.

By this stage of the claim no arrangements had been made by the third party’s insurers regarding repairs to our client’s vehicle, so we provided advice to client about obtaining a pro forma invoice. Our client’s father did this, and the cost of repairs was included in the claim.
 
At this stage, liability was still in dispute, so ongoing negotiations were entirely without prejudice to liability. Shoosmiths negotiated increases on their global valuation from £1,515 to £1,750.

Now was the time to consider drafting proceedings, as the third party’s insurers were still refusing to concede liability.

We advised the witness, client and client’s insurers on the possibility of litigation, drafted a final schedule of the client’s special damages, and made a final Part 36 to the third party’s insurers.

No response was received to this Part 36 offer, so formal notice was given to our opponents of my intention to issue court proceedings pursuant to Section 152 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and further requested they nominate solicitors on whom the court papers would be served.

No response was received to this request, so we intended to serve papers on the driver of the vehicle.

As we were preparing to do so, we received a global offer from our opponents in the sum of £2,350.58, some £800 above their initial offer. This was discussed with our client’s father, and we agreed it should be rejected.

Shoosmiths’ belief is that after a final review of their file, they realised they would have little hope of  defending their claim at trial, bearing in mind the evidence we had compiled, both from the witnesses and our client, and had decided to proceed with settling Miss X’s claim.

Negotiations continued with the third party’s insurers, and secured a global offer of £2,500.48, this being just less that £1,000 above their first offer.

When this was discussed with Mr X, we advised him that we did not feel we could beat the offer by a sufficient margin to justify proceeding to a court hearing. Mr X agreed that we should accept the offer.

Case handler

The case was handled by Paul Darby, a case handler at Shoosmiths' Basingstoke office.  Paul has been with Shoosmiths for 3 years, has experience in small claims litigation and currently specialises in personal injury and fast track litigation.  Paul is currently training for his Legal Executive qualification with the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX).

Email this page

Get in touch

Paul Darby

Case Handler
T: 08700 86 6643
I: +44 (0)1256 69 6643
E: paul.darby@shoosmiths.co.uk