Academic literature on the topic 'Insurer/Lawyer'

The facts of this case before the Austrian OGH were as follows. The late plaintiff suffered severe head injuries in a traffic accident in November 1994. The insurer of the defendant was notified in the same month; consequently, criminal charges were raised against the defendant. In May 1996 the late Plaintiff was placed under guardianship in respect of legal representation before civil authorities and vis-à-vis private contractual partners. In mid-1996 the late plaintiff engaged a lawyer, who entered into negotiations with the Defendant?s insurer. In October 1996 the plaintiff was diagnosed with a severe psychological disorder in the context of introducing legal guardianship. In April 1998 the defendant was convicted to pay a fine in the criminal proceedings; the late plaintiff was referred to the civil courts as regards his claim for compensation. The late plaintiff lodged a claim in June 1998; the proceedings were continued by his heirs after his death. The defendant invoked prescription of the claim. The Court of first instance rejected the claim. The Court of Appeal squashed the judgement and referred the case back to the Court of first instance, while allowing an appeal to the OGH. The OGH rejected this appeal by the defendant. The interruption of prescription under Section 1494 ABGB applies also if the psychological disorder or mental disability is of such nature that a legal guardian is needed to lodge, or defend against, legal claims. This holds even more true if a legal guardian has been appointed for exactly this reason. It is irrelevant that the late plaintiff was then represented by a lawyer, because Section 1494 ABGB cites only the representation by guardianship as a ground for ending the interruption. The prescription of the claims has been interrupted at least since October 1996; thus, they were not prescribed when lodging the claim in June 1998.

In the unfortunate event that you are sued for malpractice, the following suggestions could maximize the benefits of your professional liability insurance policy: Do not contact the claimant, because any statements you make can be used against you in a suit. Provide the insurer with as much information as possible. Monitor the case regularly by contacting the insurance adjuster assigned to the case and request copies of all documents generated. Communicate your feelings with the company about defending or settling the case. If you completely violated a standard of care such as giving an IV push medication to the wrong patient because of failure to check the patient's name bracelet, try to settle this case out of court. A jury would not likely be sympathetic to a nurse who injured a patient in this manner. Review the entire medical record and discuss your analysis with your attorney. Remember, as a policyholder, you have the right to demand that your claim be handled by a competent, professional lawyer. Unlike other professionals, attorneys are not required to have national certification. Defendants have the right to ask assigned attorneys about their malpractice experience. Does the attorney have a working knowledge of the procedures and technical jargon concerning the case? How many similar cases has the attorney handled? You have a right to these answers.

L'assurance de protection juridique apparaît comme l'un des moyens pour faciliter l'accès au droit et financer l'accès à la justice. C'est parce qu'il existe un risque d'avoir à engager des frais pour faire valoir ou défendre ses droits que cette assurance peut répondre au besoin de l'assuré d'être protégé juridiquement et financièrement. L'assurance de protection juridique permet-elle de garantir un réel accès au droit et à la justice. L’objectif de recherche est de proposer une évolution de l’assurance de protection juridique pour améliorer l’accès au droit et à la justice. La première partie de la thèse est consacrée au développement de l'assurance de protection juridique et à sa contribution pour l'accès au droit et à la justice. Nos recherches montrent que les assureurs de protection juridique ont contribué, au cours du XXe siècle, à l'émergence d'un système assuranciel d'accès au droit et à la justice. Cependant, le droit positif n'a pas conféré à cette branche d'assurance un système capable de répondre aux nouveaux besoins assuranciels, nés des attentes des justiciables en termes de connaissance du droit et d'accès à la justice, ou attendus par les pouvoirs publics en termes de financement de l'aide juridictionnelle. Si l'analyse du système actuel nous amène à comprendre les limites de l'assurance de protection juridique, les résultats de la recherche montrent qu'une négation des limites de l'assurance de protection juridique porterait atteinte aux principes fondamentaux qui régissent l'assurance. En effet, l'assureur sélectionne les risques pour déterminer ceux qu'il va garantir. Au-delà de ces limites, il n'est plus question de mutualisation mais de solidarité. La solidarité, née de la demande des pouvoirs publics pour le financement de l'aide juridictionnelle, à laquelle une approche révolue, fondée sur l'assurance des frais de procès, ne peut répondre. Pour y remédier, la deuxième partie de la thèse s'attache à proposer une évolution du modèle assuranciel actuel afin d’améliorer l'accès au droit et à la justice. L'approche restrictive du rôle de l'assureur de protection juridique, en tant qu'assureur de procès, n'est plus adaptée. Il ne s'agit plus d'indemniser les préjudices subis mais de garantir la gestion juridique d'un litige. L'assureur de protection juridique ne doit donc plus être cantonné dans un rôle de tiers payeur d’indemnités ; au contraire, doit être favorisée une approche privilégiant la prévention et le règlement amiable des litiges. Après avoir déterminé la manière dont les compagnies d'assurance peuvent contribuer à cette évolution, nos conclusions nous amènent à proposer un modèle adapté de résolution des désaccords, issu de recherches en droit comparé qui justifie, non seulement une évolution du régime de l'assurance de protection juridique, mais aussi celle du modèle assuranciel d'accès au droit et à la justice
The legal protection insurance appears to be one of the means of facilitating access to the law and financing access to justice. It is because there is a risk of having to incur costs to assert or defend his rights that, this insurance can meet the need of the insured to be legally and financially protected. The research objective is to determine whether the current system allows legal protection insurance to guarantee real access to law and justice. The first part of the thesis is devoted to the development of legal protection insurance and its contribution to access to law and justice. Our research shows that legal protection insurers have contributed, during the 20th century, to the emergence of an insurance system for access to law and justice. However, positive law has not conferred on this branch of insurance a system capable of answer at the new insurance needs, born of the expectations of litigants in terms of knowledge of the law and access to justice, or expected by the public authorities in terms of funding legal aid. If the analysis of the current system leads us to understand the limits of legal protection insurance, the research results show that a negation of the limits of legal protection insurance would undermine the fundamental principles that govern insurance. Indeed, the insurer selects the risks to determine which ones it will guarantee. Beyond these limits, it is no longer a question of pooling but of solidarity. Solidarity, born from the request of the public authorities for the financing of legal aid, which an outdated approach, based on trial expense insurance, cannot respond. To remedy this, the second part of the thesis endeavors to propose an evolution of the current insurance model to improve access to law and justice. The restrictive approach of the role of the legal protection insurer as a lawsuit insurer is no longer appropriate. It is no longer a question of compensating for damages suffered but of guaranteeing the legal management of a dispute. The legal protection insurer should therefore not no longer be confined in a role of third payer of indemnities ; on the contrary, should be preferred an approach favoring the prevention and the amicable settlement of disputes. After determining the way in which the insurance companies can contribute to this development, our conclusions lead us to propose an adapted model of conflict resolution, resulting from research in comparative law, which justifies not only an evolution of the regimen of legal protection insurance but also that of the insurance model of access to law and justice

In Germany legal expenses insurance is a popular way to protect against financial burdens resulting from costs for legal advice out of court and for civil litigation. Insurers just offer contracts to cover specific risks which allow actuarial calculation. Wide spread types are legal expenses insurance for traffic risks and for consumer and employee matters, while insurance for commercial risks is practically not offered anymore. If an insured risk occurs the insurer is obliged to confirm the covering of costs of lawyer and court if (mostly by application by a freely chosen lawyer) the insured can show that his claim or defense has sufficient prospect of success and is not wilful. The cover note is granted step by step, first for out of court advice, then for proceedings of first instance, and so on.