Legal aid for motor vehicles

Winning your Case
It is sad to say that the number of legal cases is increasing. This is no longer an American phenomenon, here in the Netherlands the question of ‘who is in the right’ is being decided more often than not by a judge. And the questions being decided can range from that accident on the motorway to the disagreement with your employers. Too many examples, perhaps.

Being in the Right
This does not mean, we’re sure you know, that having a legal aid policy automatically means you are going to ‘be in the right’: win your case. The judge is the one who decides. But the purpose of Legal Aid Insurance is to ensure that the rule of law is correctly being applied. And that’s important. Because if you are in the right, in the eyes of the law, then you should be able to get the justice you deserve. 

From a practical point of view this means that with Legal Aid Insurance you can leave the business of ‘being in the right’ to the specialised legal talent of the insurance companies. The obvious advantage here is that in all circumstances you are being supported by lawyers who are specialised in handling whatever conflict you are involved in. Many insurance carriers actually leave the execution of the legal work to independent legal aid foundations, with the insurer picking up the legal expenses. Some insurers do nothing else but provide legal aid, which means they become experts in their field through practice, practice, practice.  

But whoever it is providing the legal aid, without it, we are sure you’ll agree, it is becoming more and more difficult to ‘be in the right’.

An example:

Client E encounters another driver (R) who has been stranded by the roadside with a broken car. E decides to lend a hand and offers to tow R’s car to the closest garage. The towing cable is hooked up and both vehicles get underway to a garage. As the approach a traffic light, E brakes gently and evenly. R attempts to do the same only to discover there is no power assisted braking functioning in his car now that the engine is turned off. The result is that R’s car runs into the back of E’s car. 

They then encounter a speed bump, where E applies the brakes and R again runs into the back of the car towing him. E decides to stop and, together with R, the fill out a damage claims form. The damage to E’s car runs to € 850. Rs insurer, however, is of the opinion that E accepted a risk by agreeing to tow R’s car and refuses to pay. Only when the legal aid insurer threatens with a lawsuit does R’s insurance company cave in and pay the damages.

We would be the first to admit that examples do not necessarily prove that much. Every case is different, and both parties are always convinced of their right in the matter anyway. Yet, it can be said that fewer and fewer conflict situations are being settled in a ‘normal’ manner. It is more likely for the parties to dig in and call in the judge in order to reach a conclusion. Getting that kind of risk covered is not a bad idea.