Glad I didn't offend. Re the high probability for no win no fee issue, it's not always true (although I accept that's what the impression is). I know many firms who take on marginal cases - the main test is that it must have at least a 50% chance of succeeding. One firm in particular actually loses/discontinues over 50% of all its cases, but makes it pay through the fees it generates on the winning cases. I know no win no fee has come in for a lot of stick but it's not all justified. For those with reasonable claims - not necessarily sure fire cases - there will almost always be a solicitor prepared to take it on - it's trickier when you move outside the traditional areas of personal injury/clinical negligence but the options are growing.

Hope this helps anyone thinking about instructing a lawyer - there are many more options now than there were just a few years ago. It's not a perfect system but it's one thing that this government did improve - access to justice irrespective of financial means.

Hi -- No problem at all, I am not sore at all about your statement it's good to have differing opinion on the forum, all I wanted was to draw your attention to the full facts and the reason why I replied with what I did.

I know of after the event insurance and also know that if it's not considered a high probability win-win case, there would be no hope in hell of getting an after the event insurer to take the risk on.....that is why I advised the OP because in my opinion, the reasons he has been denied by the original insurer would be deemed to be a valid legal reason.

Good luck - welcome to the MS forum.

Fair point - I was just making the general point (as it's often misunderstood) that it IS possible to have legal expenses insurance cover backdated which is the main difference between so called before the event (policies which are taken out annually in case legal assistance is required) and after the event, which covers the legal expenses for people after a dispute has arisen.

Having now read the original thread I can see that the issue is defending the claim without an insurer. My memory of these is a little sketchy, but I'm pretty sure that where there is an injury involved the insurers of the vehicle are obliged to deal with the claim (as a MIB claim), and thereafter pursue recovery from the uninsured motorist - ie they don't have the right to simply decline indemnity. This might give the original poster a chance of successfully defending this one - it's possible that a judge might accept their version of events in which case they could walk away with no third party liabilities.

Apologies to you for saying your reply was incorrect.

Emmanuel_G -

I had the benefit of knowing the full facts surrounding this case and more information from the original posters other thread, before I wrote the reply above to his different question contained here..

Have a look at the original thread before saying my reply is incorrect. I think your opinion will be somewhat different after you have absorbed what has happened.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/t/registered-owner-insurance-23599.aspx

Hi

I'm sorry if this reaches you too late, but the other reply you received is incorrect. You obviously know something about After the Event insurance; this is a type of insurance that you take out after the event has happened (in your case, the dispute with your insurance company). So, it is not too late. That's the good news.

It is not necessarily as simple as that though. This type of insurance HAS to be taken out through your solicitor. You say you have one already and they don't seem keen on pursuing this for you. This could be because they don't think you have a good case. An AFter the Event insurer will issue a policy to you if they believe that you are likely to win - and they are strongly swayed by the opinion of your solicitor. Have you tried approaching another law firm? What you probably need is a law firm to offer you a Conditional Fee Agreement (no win no fee) which means that you don't pay them unless you win (and then in practice their fees are paid by the other side). You are still responsible for expenses though, although if you also take out an AFter the Event insuranc epolicy then the cost of these are covered if you lose (and if you won you get the cost back from the other side).

There is a service launching in early 2009 which may be able to help you (it's called Lawtree), although this may be too late for you. In the meantime what I would do - and it can be a timeconsuming job - take your local Yellow Pages and ring round a few law firms asking them if they offer no Conditional Fee Agreements for non injury work (many don't). Most will offer you a 30 min free interview so when you find a firm that does offer these arrangements, go and see them and explin your situation. I stress though that it will com down to how strong in law they feel your case is. A law firm is only likeoy to take on your case if they think they will win for you - and therefore get paid.

I hope this helps. If you let me know roughly where in the country you are I could suggest a couple of firms that might be able to help.

There is no way an insurer will retrospectively backdate cover to pay out for a past event... you're quite correct, it is too late. !

Think hard, some even look for ways to avoid paying out for events that occur whilst cover is in force.

Cross reference your original thread.

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/t/registered-owner-insurance-23599.aspx