Five figure compensation payment following rear end collision on M5 motorway

Miss N received £85,000 for multiple injuries she sustained after getting stuck in a tailback of traffic which was queuing off the exit slip road on the M5, northbound.  As she was attempting to pull out into the middle lane to pass the queue of traffic, she was struck at 70 miles per hour from behind.

Miss N’s Injuries

In early March 2019, Miss N was heading north on the M5, driving her Vauxhall Astra in the inside lane, when the traffic ahead started to slow as it was backed up from the slip road.  Miss N slowed down and found herself stationary, behind other vehicles.  She was leaning slightly forward in her seat, looking in her wing mirror for a chance to pull out into the middle lane to pass the stationary line of traffic when she was suddenly struck from behind by the Defendant, driving his work’s van, at around 70 miles.  She was struck so hard, she was catapulted into the car in front which caused the airbags in her car to explode in her face.

A driver, travelling on the opposite side of the carriageway, who was an off-duty medic, witnessed the accident, and came to her aid.  Miss N suffered multiple injuries, including multiple soft tissue injuries, loss of sense of smell and taste, broken teeth, a broken nose and black eyes.

The Settlement

Miss N had the benefit of legal expenses insurance and when she notified her road traffic insurers of the accident, they immediately put her in touch with their panel solicitors. Those solicitors submitted Miss N’s claim to the Defendant’s insurers without taking full instructions in relation to the extent of her injuries, suggesting that the claim had a value of less than £25,000.

Miss N endured 3 months of problems with the panel solicitors before instructing Nash & Co to take over conduct of her claim. Her main concern was that she could not get her own solicitor to respond to her telephone calls. Upon contacting the panel solicitors who were dealing with the claim, they advised that their file was closed and upon review, there did not appear to be any reason for the file closure. Liability had been admitted and rehabilitation offered to Miss N, neither of which had been communicated to her. The claim has been submitted and a number of injuries had been missed, including the broken teeth and loss of sense of smell and taste.

Detailed instructions were taken from Miss N and the claim was presented again to the Defendant’s insurers, who, understandably, were a little concerned that the claim then presented, differed from the initial claim. There were contemporaneous medical records supporting Miss N’s injuries.

Whilst some of the soft tissue injuries were short-lived, the shoulder injury continued, resulting in Miss N undergoing shoulder surgery. She also developed a chronic pain syndrome. Multiple medical reports from a variety of specialisms had to be obtained, due to the wide variety of injuries.

Miss N also had to give up her job as a care assistant as, due to the shoulder injury, she could no longer lift and move patients safely.

Multiple treatment costs were claimed within Miss N’s financial losses as not only did she require shoulder surgery, it was also recommended that she undergo nasal surgery to repair a deviated septum and to straighten her nose, which she was very conscious of. She required physiotherapy which was funded by the Defendant through their rehabilitation provider and she also needed CBT and EMDR treatment for psychological injuries.

Marie Oxland, who represented the client, stated that she was dismayed when receiving the response from the panel solicitors to find they had closed their file for no apparent reason and that the claim had been submitted without proper instructions having been taken.

Whilst many clients have legal expenses insurance attached to motor policies, it is of paramount importance that they ensure the panel firm instructed are capable of dealing with complex claims where multiple injuries have been suffered and that the lawyer dealing with the claim has the necessary experience otherwise clients will not receive the compensation they are entitled to.