A landmark case where a brain damaged claimant tried to overturn a settlement has been heralded as a victory for insurers after the Court of Appeal rejected the claimant's argument.
In Bailey v Warren, the claimant, George Bailey, was hit by a car after he left a hotel. At the trial in 2000, it was agreed Bailey was partly to blame for the accident and liability would be settled on a 50/50 basis.
Bailey later instructed a new firm of solicitors to reopen the case on the grounds - it is believed - he wanted to win higher damages. The defendant insurer Direct Line agued it should not have to pay more than the 50% liability which had been originally agreed.
The claimant's lawyers contended that Bailey was a patient and did not have the mental capacity to agree to the earlier decision. The Court of Appeal sided with Direct Line.
Glyn Jones, insurance partner at Ricksons, which acted for Direct Line, said: "This is an important case for the insurance industry as it provides some protection in cases where settlement is reached with a legally represented claimant who, unknown to the insurer, is a patient. The insurer was faced with having to reopen the issue of liability more than six years after the accident."
