LETTERS: `Bottom-up' legal settlements
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Grania Langdon-Down's article on structured settlements (3 April) was very timely, given that this method of paying damages in a personal injury claim was given a major fillip by the Finance Act, 1995. This enabled the annuity payments to be made directly from the life insurer to the plaintiff, rather than through the defendant insurer, effecting considerable savings in administrative costs and tax for the insurer. Further useful changes are on the way in the Damages Bill, which will shortly begin its passage through Parliament.
However, the article was somewhat misleading in suggesting that arranging a structured settlement from the bottom up, rather than the top down, is new. Both approaches have been adopted by solicitors and insurers for some time and it is arguable whether they are radically different. Generally, those advising the plaintiff will need to consider the potential size of any lump sum the plaintiff may receive, in order to be able to evaluate the advantages of resolving the claim by a lump sum, or in whole, or in part, by a structured settlement. While the bottom-up needs-based approach certainly has advantages in cases where liability is disputed, or there is an element of contributory negligence, or where life expectancy is reduced, the plaintiff certainly needs robust and independent advice on whether the annuity package on offer from the insurer is in his or her best interests.
Suzanne Burn
Secretary, Civil Litigation Committee
The Law Society
London WC2
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments