The Transport Select Committee released a report today on whiplash injuries.
It said large numbers of fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims have contributed to the increase in motor insurance premiums in recent years.
Estimates of the percentage of fraudulent claims, based on firms' caseloads, statistical extrapolations or survey data, ranged from 0.1% to over 60%, according to the report.
The committee said ministers should consider reducing the limitation period for road accident insurance claims, and require whiplash claimants to produce more supporting evidence.
In a blog responding to the report James Dalton of the
Association of British Insurerssaid the MPs had missed the opportunity to “grasp the nettle” and deliver for consumers.
“As I highlighted in my June blog after giving evidence to the Committee, the case in favour of meaningful reform of the whiplash claims process is overwhelming,” he wrote.
“Politicians recognise that, but today’s report shows how nervous they are about making the tough calls for change to help insurers combat the whiplash epidemic and deliver further premium reductions for hard-pressed motorists.
“The Committee’s report rightly highlighted the need to improve the quality and timeliness of evidence used in whiplash claims and the importance of an accreditation framework for doctors preparing medical reports.
“Most people agree with that, so no difficulty there. The report also asks whether a three-year limitation period to bring a whiplash claim remains appropriate and whether requiring whiplash claimants to provide more information in support of their claim is correct.
“Interesting questions. But what is needed is action, not further delay to facilitate more debate and discussion.”
Committee Chair Louise Ellman MP, said:
“Motor insurers have committed to passing any reductions in costs arising from legal reforms to consumers in the form of lower premiums. We recommend that the Government explain how it will monitor that this commitment is honoured.”
She added: “Many claims are genuine and relate to real injuries which can affect people for months or years. In the debate about how to reduce fraud and exaggeration, genuine claimants should not be demonised simply because their condition cannot be picked up on a scan.”