Indemnity Insurance

Sydney2007

Quote for €28,500 from SMDF. Will nearly put us out of practice, except they want 200% of that for run off insurance! They say it's the conveyancing that does it. Do you think it might be a good idea to add an "insurance levy" to all conveyancing bills so that clients realise that the Indemnity Insurance is to some extent responsible for high fees. The day of a €600 fee even for a small field is over.

Delancey

According to the latest edition of Phoenix Magazine SMDF funds are ''negative ( their italics )....to the tune of 8 million '' - not sure exactly what this means

Jo King

Your PI insurance is an overhead. Your fee is supposed to reflect your overheads and profit. Putting "insurance levy" in a Section 68 letter would be a red rag to clients who would probably go elsewhere and pay an all inclusive fee and also complain to the Law Society. If you were in a shop and asked for a "shoplifting levy" what would you think?
If I was in a restaurant and charged a "no show" levy because restaurants lose money on "no shows" I would think it ridiculous.
The competition laws on fees mean, that if you cannot make money on the fees the market will stand, then give up.
It is illegal to try and have any level of fee and or "levy" agreed with competitors.

nuac

Many solicitors around the country say that the Professionnal Indemnity situation is worse this year than last. The quotation given to Sydney2007 is not unusual - some much higher quotations given, and many cases of refusal to quote.

Some practices have had large increases in their quotation even though they have had no claim notifications during the year.


I have heard that SMDF are not quoting solicitors who did not deal with them before, ven though the profession as a whole are now guarantors to cover their loss on investments last year.


The assigned risk pool costs an arm and a leg - 20% of gross fee income for rather limited cover.

Our profession has become the meat in a sandwich between the banks and the insurance companies. Urgent action is needed.

James Cahill Castlebar who is a law society council member, and who organised a useful survey of quotations last year, would be interested to hear from those having difficulties this year. He can be contacted at info@jamescahill.com

Good luck to all colleagues coming up to Tuesday's deadline.

curious123

heard of a possibility of getting PI insurance in the north, for those on the roll in the north, that will allow you to practice in the south. does any one know any more about this? and how would Irish LS look at this?

2Daphne2

Came across this website today www.dobetter.ie They claim to get a 20% reduction on previous years insurance. Might be worth checking out?

dazza21ie

Just wondering how people have got on in the last week in relation to their renewals. From what I hear premiums are a multiple of last years.

McCrack

My firm 14K last year with AON to 11K this year with Prime (they are in the UK)

dazza21ie

McCrack wrote: »

My firm 14K last year with AON to 11K this year with Prime (they are in the UK)

Can i ask what type of work would your firm mainly carry out?

McCrack

We are general and do about 40% commercial and residential conveyancing.

Sydney2007

nuac, you are correct in what you hear. SMDF declined to quote a firm I know who were with Quinn/RSA last year.

So even though AON were very competitive this year (we got a quote of €21,000) sole practitioners are terrified of leaving SMDF in case that we might be left high and dry if we were with someone who left the market. Not so many companies want sole practitioners, and so I and other sole practitioners have a (possibly mistaken) feeling that at least we can be sure of a quote from SMDF if we stick with them. Though I do think that SMDF are taking advantage of this feeling - even though I told them about the lower quote, they wouldn't come down a cent! If it's still the same next year, I think that I and a lot of other sole practitioners I know will just have to take our chances and leave SMDF for a competitor. It's not feasible in the current climate to pay ever increasing premiums - mine has increased by €1,500 this year, and I don't think I can take the same again next year.
It's just very difficult. Most of us are too old to close down and look for another career, so we have to keep going! And we cant afford the run off premium!
And I do have the feeling that the Law Society isn't too bothered by the tribulations of the sole practitioners. It would suit them fine if half of us disappeared, since it would be much easier to regulate if there were much fewer firms of more solicitors.

Delancey

As I understand it '' run off '' insurance is required by the Law Society for a practice that is ceasing operations , the idea being that claims may emerge from actions taken years ago ?
If a solicitor decides to give up practice and go off and do something else instead why would he/she take run off cover , without it the Law Society cannot really do much about it - he/she can hardly be struck off the roll given they have already left the profession ?

Victor

delancey42 wrote: »

According to the latest edition of Phoenix Magazine SMDF funds are ''negative ( their italics )....to the tune of 8 million '' - not sure exactly what this means

Most insurance funds have a reserve to cover exceptional losses. Instead of having a reserve, it would seem the fund already owes more than it has. Of course, whether this is based on whether claims have been finalised or not may have some bearing.

Sydney2007 wrote: »

Not so many companies want sole practitioners

And I do have the feeling that the Law Society isn't too bothered by the tribulations of the sole practitioners. It would suit them fine if half of us disappeared, since it would be much easier to regulate if there were much fewer firms of more solicitors.

Sole practitioners, in any field, from truck driver to to rocket scientist are seen as a higher risk as there is no supervision, less peer review and an inability to deal with absence.