Person broke red light and wrote my car off, injured, insurance only paying 500?

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Proviso; Everybody is entitled to be dealt with in a civil manner, no matter what their issue is. However, my experience is that many people take 'bad news' as a personal attack, even when it is handled professionally.

There was no bad news in the initial phonecall, only a similar experience to what CelticWarrior experienced with peteb2. Unwarranted aggression and a very negative tone "the best defence is a good offence". Peteb2 isn't the only one at it here even. I suspect it's rampant in the industry.

Deal with people sympathetically, as if they suffered financial loss and injury through no fault of their own - unless they show themselves to be unreasonable or less than legitimate.

There is an entrenched "they're all cheating scum" attitude in the industry "Oh so you'd like to insure a second car. For yourself is it? hahaha yeah right ya scumbag. You'll be back to me in a month asking to add little johnny to your MX5 won't ya ya scumbag ya"

"Oh you'd like to put a car back on the road that was sitting up for 3 months at home in the yard is it. Get up the yard, we know you've been doing wheelies around the Lidl carpark in it..." etc etc.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Let's not drift away the claims aspect for the moment SC, which is the area I currently work (in a brokerage, not an insurer). If one of my clients contacts me with a claim issue, they are dealt with in a friendly, efficient, sympathetic and professional manner. I will do my best to see that they are sorted ASAP and I will tackle their insurer hard if they try and low ball the policyholder. My employer will not accept anything less from me, trust me on that

If a 3rd party contacts me alleging that one of my clients has caused an accident and wishes to claim against them, the approach is different. It will still be efficient and professional, but I have a duty to protect my client. I will take the appropriate details and advise the 3rd party of the next steps to be taken. However, I will fish for information that may assist my client's defence and I certainly will not advise a 3rd party on how to maximise their claim. If, in my opinion, the accident is cut and dry against my client, I will offer the 3rd party every assistance with the process in an effort resolve the matter quickly, without them feeling they need to involve solicitors for minor losses. Again, that is in my client's interest.

Our business is no different to any other, if people approach you the right way, you tend to do a bit more from them

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Let's not drift away the claims aspect for the moment SC, which is the area I currently work (in a brokerage, not an insurer). If one of my clients contacts me with a claim issue, they are dealt with in a friendly, efficient, sympathetic and professional manner. I will do my best to see that they are sorted ASAP and I will tackle their insurer hard if they try and low ball the policyholder. My employer will not accept anything less from me, trust me on that

If a 3rd party contacts me alleging that one of my clients has caused an accident and wishes to claim against them, the approach is different. It will still be efficient and professional, but I have a duty to protect my client. I will take the appropriate details and advise the 3rd party of the next steps to be taken. However, I will fish for information that may assist my client's defence and I certainly will not advise a 3rd party on how to maximise their claim. If, in my opinion, the accident is cut and dry against my client, I will offer the 3rd party every assistance with the process in an effort resolve the matter quickly, without them feeling they need to involve solicitors for minor losses. Again, that is in my client's interest.

Our business is no different to any other, if people approach you the right way, you tend to do a bit more from them

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways tbh - people claiming against third parties should expect to be lowballed etc unless they engage a solicitor. I'm glad we can all agree on that much!

hullaballoo

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

You are in the legal profession so its natural you are going to try and defend it however the fact of the matter is that the injuries board was specifically set up to cut out the legal industry from injury claims due to the length of time it was taking to get cases processed and the associated costs with that.

Yes, I am in the legal profession and you are in the insurance game, so let's be clear, we both have a dog in this fight. We have disagreed over insurance/legal professional business in the past but I am concerned with the level of inaccurate information you are presenting, probably in good faith, which could be a disservice to anyone reading this. That is not an attack on you personally, there are a number of widely-held misconceptions about how/why/what lawyers do and, as always, there are certainly some lawyers who make headlines who muddy the waters as far as what I am trying to get at below.

I will try and explain as briefly as possible.

The bigger the settlement for the claimant the bigger the cut for the solicitor so there is clearly a vested interest in keeping things going as long as possible and getting as big a settlement as possible. I find it difficult to align the argument that the legal industry is acting in the best interests of the claimants, there is too much money at stake for that to be believable.

Lawyers are specifically precluded from taking a cut or a percentage of an award. Our fees are subject to scrutiny, both solicitors and barristers, by the party who has to pay the costs. If there is a dispute, there are taxation hearings to measure the costs (if the judge has not already done so.)

Like any business, cash flow is important to lawyers because we don't have the free money trees some people think we do. It is far more preferable for me to have 10 cases settle early and get paid in peanuts (High Court PI case for which I get paid a total of €300 after 6-12 months) than one that actually goes to hearing (where I might get €1,500-€2,000 after 2+ years.) We only get paid for predefined billable items on a scale that depends on the complexity of the work. Personal injuries cases in the main are regarded as non-complex, so all fees are at the bottom of that scale.

It hasn't always been like this. As with many business dealings in this country, up until relatively recently, but still way before my time in practice, deals were done out of suitcases full of cash. In those days, lawyers were paid as a proportion of awards/settlements. There were big fees for cases that ran for years, so there were different motivators. Those days are long gone.

I have suggested elsewhere that the vast majority of people would be truly surprised to learn what lawyers get paid and for what work. The fee structures are daft. So daft that the vast majority of the work I do is completely unpaid. I don't even get to submit a bill for it, but if I did, it would simply be laughed at. (There is some variance between the professions, solicitors and barristers on this, but I think the overall point is cross-applicable.) The "billable" rate of €250 per hour for a junior lawyer is literally pie in the sky outside of the top tier law firms, and even then, that rate is not relevant to litigation at all, but to commercial clients on a pre-arranged basis.

Its unfortunate that the insurance industry and the legal industry are somewhat at odds when it comes to claims, there is vast expertise on both sides however for insurers they want to keep settlements as low as possible but solicitors want bigger settlements.

Absolutely true. Both insurance companies and lawyers do have vested interests in that regard. Insurance companies are in business for profit and clearly want to keep settlements down and not over-pay. Solicitors and barristers are professionally obliged to get the best award for their client. They have to at a minimum ensure that their client gets a fair value, not too far off what they would be awarded by a Court. As above though, the size of the award makes no difference to the pay cheque the lawyers get.

In an ideal world they would work in tandem to get a fair result for all parties and more so, to weed out the chancers, spoofers and fraudulent claimants but at the end of the day, there is literally millions of euro at stake every year and money is after all the root of all evil. I don't see any kind of partnership ever happening.

Agreed. Fraudulent claims are absolutely despicable and I would never ever represent someone who I thought, never mind actually knowing, was attempting to defraud us (all of us who pay insurance, lawyers included.) I have no idea whether there are any lawyers who would be complicit but unfortunately, there are bad eggs in every profession who might turn a blind eye to their own suspicions.

Unfortunately, in the adversarial legal system we have, partnership or working together is not natural to lawyers and would result in sanction from our regulators, if we were to disclose matters that are not beneficial to our clients, sometimes at the cost of finding an early compromise.

Just as an aside, I'd like if you contributed more to the threads in here, it would be good to get a legal perspective / point of view on some of the topics that come up.

I have often thought about PMing you for an old fashioned head-to-head discussion on this stuff because I know we have crossed paths only for me to flit away without replying to you. Unfortunately, I am very busy these days with various things, the collection of peanuts being one, and I cannot commit to such a thing. For those with the patience, it may take me a day or two to get back to these things but I will try my best.

nhunter100 wrote: »

Actually I had an accident several years ago. Hit from behind, got the other drivers details insurance etc. Contacted their insurance company and started a claim. They provided me with a courtesy car whilst mine was being repaired. Contacted PIAB downloaded the forms filled them out. Keep all receipts from physio, hospital and all other out pocket expenses. Documented loss of earnings. Received all that was due to me and compensated to what I felt my injuries warranted. All done by myself no need for a legal team.

I am really not saying that going to PIAB directly with a DIY job never works out. I am saying that for the vast majority of people, the peace of mind of having a professional look after all of that for you is worth the money. (In cases that do get dealt with fully at the PIAB stage, solicitors will take a reasonable fee out of the awarded amount, because PIAB is not allowed to factor in legal costs.)

In your case, things worked out. However, what would have happened if you had taken that settlement figure only for your injuries to fail to resolve? Soft tissue injuries (and I'm going to keep away from whiplash for now) can take a long time to fully resolve. Sometimes, they don't fully resolve and surgery can be required 2+ years down the line.

Now, if you did a DIY job with the PIAB stuff and taken their settlement, there's no comeback. You're stuck with whatever amount was given to you and even if you end up getting bits of yourself replaced etc., you cannot go back to them and say, actually, my injuries didn't settle as I was expecting so I need more money.

If you have a solicitor do this work for you, they will know that your injury will take time to settle and will do their best to put the brakes on PIAB in making a premature assessment without all the evidence. Crucially, if your solicitor advises you to take a PIAB award prematurely (negligently), you can sue them for this negligence. And this is why investing in the appropriate professional in any aspect of life is regarded as sensible: You can't sue yourself for a botched DIY job.

ED E wrote: »

+1 Its a layman friendly process. Lawyers are bitter about losing their cut.

The lawyers who may be bitter about losing their cut are dinosaurs because PIAB has been around (and before that, everyone knew it was coming) since 2004. It is a long, long time since the kind of stereotypical greedy, greasy-handed lawyer that people imagine has dominated the profession. It still has it's problems, yes. There are tragic issues with the overall system, yes. There are still a good number of fcuking arseholes, maybe even a disproportionately high number, but the vast majority of lawyers I know do not engage in practices that don't represent the best interests of their clients and do so in as cost efficient a way as the system currently allows.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways tbh - people claiming against third parties should expect to be lowballed etc unless they engage a solicitor. I'm glad we can all agree on that much!

I said nothing of the sort, I said I would not assist a 3rd party to claim against my client. They have to substantiate the claim themselves and this can easily be done without the need for a solicitor

nhunter100

hullaballoo wrote:

In your case, things worked out. However, what would have happened if you had taken that settlement figure only for your injuries to fail to resolve? Soft tissue injuries (and I'm going to keep away from whiplash for now) can take a long time to fully resolve. Sometimes, they don't fully resolve and surgery can be required 2+ years down the line.

hullaballoo wrote:

Now, if you did a DIY job with the PIAB stuff and taken their settlement, there's no comeback. You're stuck with whatever amount was given to you and even if you end up getting bits of yourself replaced etc., you cannot go back to them and say, actually, my injuries didn't settle as I was expecting so I need more money.

hullaballoo wrote:

If you have a solicitor do this work for you, they will know that your injury will take time to settle and will do their best to put the brakes on PIAB in making a premature assessment without all the evidence. Crucially, if your solicitor advises you to take a PIAB award prematurely (negligently), you can sue them for this negligence. And this is why investing in the appropriate professional in any aspect of life is regarded as sensible: You can't sue yourself for a botched DIY job.

Thanks for your prospective, I understand where you're coming from but I will disagree completely with it. There is absolutely no need for a solicitor to be involved in the PIAB process. A claimant upon receiving an offer of settlement if they disagree with it can consult a solicitor then and pursue through the courts. Furthermore a solicitor is not qualified to offer an opinion on a soft tissue injury or its future consequences, that is why I insisted on seeing a specialist in regards my injury. As for suing a solicitor, I have experience of being represented by an incompetent clown but when I made a formal compliant to the professional body the shutters went up. My experience suggests to me that all you need is your eyes open, some research and allow the PIAB in the first instance do what they were set up to do. My personal dealing with solicitors does not endear your profession to me, but that's just me.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Let's not drift away the claims aspect for the moment SC, which is the area I currently work (in a brokerage, not an insurer). If one of my clients contacts me with a claim issue, they are dealt with in a friendly, efficient, sympathetic and professional manner. I will do my best to see that they are sorted ASAP and I will tackle their insurer hard if they try and low ball the policyholder. My employer will not accept anything less from me, trust me on that

If a 3rd party contacts me alleging that one of my clients has caused an accident and wishes to claim against them, the approach is different. It will still be efficient and professional, but I have a duty to protect my client. I will take the appropriate details and advise the 3rd party of the next steps to be taken. However, I will fish for information that may assist my client's defence and I certainly will not advise a 3rd party on how to maximise their claim. If, in my opinion, the accident is cut and dry against my client, I will offer the 3rd party every assistance with the process in an effort resolve the matter quickly, without them feeling they need to involve solicitors for minor losses. Again, that is in my client's interest.

Our business is no different to any other, if people approach you the right way, you tend to do a bit more from them

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I think we are saying the same thing in different ways tbh - people claiming against third parties should expect to be lowballed etc unless they engage a solicitor. I'm glad we can all agree on that much!

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I said nothing of the sort, I said I would not assist a 3rd party to claim against my client. They have to substantiate the claim themselves and this can easily be done without the need for a solicitor

You're saying you'd never lowball a claimant? You're acknowledging that other insurers would lowball your customer, but you'd never lowball someone claiming against your customer?

You'd never draw things out, try their patience, lowball them again, dispute something legitimate?

I have a funny feeling utmost good faith and disclosure only work one way - you'd never omit to mention certain things they should/could claim for? You'd expect a first time claimer to know that they would need their own vehicle inspection to horse trade against the biased one done for you?

You'd offer up car hire or whatever, make sure the person was treated fairly and with respect?

You're saying average joe, who isn't a serial claimant or all that well up on the industries tactics can manage to negotiate through all this without leaving money on the table?

Is it just innocent and naive people that couldn't manage it? But shur, they deserve to be messed around with and lowballed, the thicks? :mad:

:pac: insurers, a great bunch of lads wha?

Sue Pa Key Pa

hullaballoo wrote: »

0

Agreed. Fraudulent claims are absolutely despicable and I would never ever represent someone who I thought, never mind actually knowing, was attempting to defraud us (all of us who pay insurance, lawyers included.) I have no idea whether there are any lawyers who would be complicit but unfortunately, there are bad eggs in every profession who might turn a blind eye to their own suspicions.


.

A very frank and informative post hullaballoo, but I need to query this further with you. There must have been times when you 'know' that the person who walks through your door with injuries they claim to have, are exaggerated (or don't exist at all). Are you saying that the majority of your colleagues would refuse to represent them?

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

A very frank and informative post hullaballoo, but I need to query this further with you. There must have been times when you 'know' that the person who walks through your door with injuries they claim to have, are exaggerated (or don't exist at all). Are you saying that the majority of your colleagues would refuse to represent them?

I have often been accused of "not understanding insurance"... but come on - a medical report from a legitimate medical professional is required.

First you're saying a legal professional can't manage anything a semi-literate mostly lucid OAP couldn't, then you're saying that they should be able to form a medical opinion that trumps someone who has spent how many years at medical school and in practice.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're saying you'd never lowball a claimant? You're acknowledging that other insurers would lowball your customer, but you'd never lowball someone claiming against your customer?

In a previous role, when I had ultimate authority to settle claims, I can honestly say that I never lowballed any client. I often increased a claim where a client hadn't spotted something. However, I had no problem cutting someone for an item they weren't entitled to or was exaggerated.

I would try and minimise a claim AGAINST my client, as would be my duty

Nowadays, there are issues with incidents where insurers try and minimise the claim TO their own clients, but it is not widespread IM

hullaballoo

nhunter100 wrote: »

Thanks for your prospective, I understand where you're coming from but I will disagree completely with it. There is absolutely no need for a solicitor to be involved in the PIAB process. A claimant upon receiving an offer of settlement if they disagree with it can consult a solicitor then and pursue through the courts.

Fair enough, they can do that and that is their entitlement. In my experience, the majority of people would be better served engaging a solicitor from the outset of the process, for peace of mind. You were confident and able enough to deal with this aspect yourself, not so for the majority, again in my experience.

Furthermore a solicitor is not qualified to offer an opinion on a soft tissue injury or its future consequences, that is why I insisted on seeing a specialist in regards my injury.

That is correct, a solicitor cannot give you a medical prognosis etc. but an experienced lawyer will have dealt with enough cases to know what the significance of various injuries is and what late complications can arise. They are also uniquely positioned to know the range of values such injuries will attract in any given case. A solicitor can advise in advance when PIAB will not be able to assess, or where their assessment will definitely be too low in the circumstances. (As above, PIAB are simply not well enough equipped to assess everything - probably a conversation for another day.)

At that stage of proceedings, most solicitors' fees will be in the low hundreds, btw, so many would regard that as a worthwhile few bob.

As for suing a solicitor, I have experience of being represented by an incompetent clown but when I made a formal compliant to the professional body the shutters went up. My experience suggests to me that all you need is your eyes open, some research and allow the PIAB in the first instance do what they were set up to do. My personal dealing with solicitors does not endear your profession to me, but that's just me.

I would hope that this would not happen to you today. I cannot speak on behalf of either profession but there have been concerted efforts to rid both of these perceptions.

Just as an aside really, but complaining to the Law Society is not the same as suing your solicitor for negligence, as I was outlining above.

I am not a solicitor but even if I was, I wouldn't take it personally. Your complaint is still too common, even if my belief is that it is one held by a minority nowadays. However, all I can do is apologise on behalf of the rest of us lawyers that that was your experience and say that it greatly bothers those of us who wouldn't mess around that there are those who do. It is my belief that the latter's days are numbered anyway.

hullaballoo

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

A very frank and informative post hullaballoo, but I need to query this further with you. There must have been times when you 'know' that the person who walks through your door with injuries they claim to have, are exaggerated (or don't exist at all). Are you saying that the majority of your colleagues would refuse to represent them?

I wasn't going to do an AMA since there is one involving a solicitor elsewhere!

But to answer this, I have never had a client in a personal injuries setting where I thought they were exaggerating or completely making up their injuries. When I was an apprentice, I did notice while working on a matter that the claim seemed very fishy and it mirrored what has since become one of these pure scams where one car is rear ended by a hit and run (untraceable) driver. I don't know what happened to that case ultimately but that's the closest I've been to one.

I will take it that you are asking about my colleagues in the legal profession generally rather than just barristers? I cannot speak for 10,000 people but I would say that those of the legal profession with whom I work and associate would have similar scruples.

nhunter100

hullaballoo wrote:

Just as an aside really, but complaining to the Law Society is not the same as suing your solicitor for negligence, as I was outlining above.

Thanks for replying, I still disagree with you regards PIAB I think it is an easy and straightforward process. However no need to discuss that again.
Just to deal with part of your comment. What happened regards the solicitor I mentioned was quite recent and I made the attempt to sue after I made a compliant which was ignored. Finding someone to help me was impossible so I gave up. Hopefully Karma will be more sympathetic. The legal profession has only polished the veneer, the rot is underneath.
Take care and thanks for responding to me.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Hullaballoo, I appreciate this is not a AMA and you contribution has clarified a few points for me, but I need to delve further on the aspect of facilitating fraud.

The insurance, legal and medical professions are all governed by strict codes of conduct, yet fraudulent claims are rife in our society. From my own (insurance) prospective, I have NEVER seen, what I feel in my bones to be a dodgy claim, succeed without the support of the legal and medical professions. My stance is that an insurer has little defence to offer in the face of this 2 pronged attack. It is my opinion that the legal profession is happy to use the medical profession as justification to support a fraudulent claim, though I am more than willing to have this clarified.
p
Is there anything to be said for a thread resricted to posters in the 3 professions that may give outsiders proper insight?

hullaballoo

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Hullaballoo, I appreciate this is not a AMA and you contribution has clarified a few points for me, but I need to delve further on the aspect of facilitating fraud.

The insurance, legal and medical professions are all governed by strict codes of conduct, yet fraudulent claims are rife in our society. From my own (insurance) prospective, I have NEVER seen, what I feel in my bones to be a dodgy claim, succeed without the support of the legal and medical professions. My stance is that an insurer has little defence to offer in the face of this 2 pronged attack. It is my opinion that the legal profession is happy to use the medical profession as justification to support a fraudulent claim, though I am more than willing to have this clarified.

If you have no more evidence of a fraudulent claim than a feeling in your bones, what are you expecting the representative lawyers and medics to find? It's an entirely subjective thing, a gut feeling. Not everyone gets them and not everyone will react to the same situation with such a gut feeling.

What you are then doing is overlaying on reality a perception that the lawyers/medics are all in on a conspiracy to defraud you because you are convinced that your gut feeling is correct, despite there being no real evidence to back it up.

Lawyers (and medics), even when acting for clients, do investigate the veracity of their clients' cases as much as possible. Very few of us are willing to risk our professional reputations to get more money for our client. The cost is too great in circumstances where both lawyers' and medics' careers depend on reputation.

Having said that, there are some medics who would have a reputation for being pro-Plaintiff, while others would be pro-Defendant. Even at that, I have seen reports from both pro-Plaintiff and pro-Defendant that buck the general trends of their reports in the face of people exaggerating injuries and where injuries are genuine and life-changing, respectively.

Is there anything to be said for a thread resricted to posters in the 3 professions that may give outsiders proper insight?

I'd have no objection, but it is more difficult to discuss these things in the abstract. Surely we'd need some people to ask some questions to get the ball rolling, since there are a number of different topics of conversation where the 3 professions might have different things to say.

Special Circumstances

hullaballoo wrote: »

If you have no more evidence of a fraudulent claim than a feeling in your bones, what are you expecting the representative lawyers and medics to find? It's an entirely subjective thing, a gut feeling. Not everyone gets them and not everyone will react to the same situation with such a gut feeling.

What you are then doing is overlaying on reality a perception that the lawyers/medics are all in on a conspiracy to defraud you because you are convinced that your gut feeling is correct, despite there being no real evidence to back it up.

Have you seen some of the justifications for stuff in this forum? There are cults with better hard facts to back things up!

A lot of is actually verging on "I feel it in me waters". It really wouldn't surprise me to learn dowsing rods or numerology were involved along the way.

The trump card for any debate is the "magical mystical tablets held in a cavern guarded by dragons" that contain all the data that backs up these assertions. No one but the grand high wizard is allowed to see this data, even in a redacted form.

Sue Pa Key Pa

hullaballoo wrote: »

If you have no more evidence of a fraudulent claim than a feeling in your bones, what are you expecting the representative lawyers and medics to find? It's an entirely subjective thing, a gut feeling. .

I fully agree, but I was referring to your previous comment, "I would never ever represent someone who I thought, never mind actually knowing, was attempting to defraud us". These lads are finding representation very easy to acquire

We all agree that the big problem for us all is proving fraud. If it was easy, we wouldn't be here

hullaballoo

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I fully agree, but I was referring to your previous comment, "I would never ever represent someone who I thought, never mind actually knowing, was attempting to defraud us". These lads are finding representation very easy to acquire

We all agree that the big problem for us all is proving fraud. If it was easy, we wouldn't be here

Yes, that's true, I wouldn't if I thought there was potentially fraud involved but that would be my own subjective interpretation of the information before me.

My point above was that any given set of facts will evoke a different interpretation of them, depending on who you are, so just because you feel something's fishy, doesn't mean I will.

Also, there is the potential for confirmation bias on your part, as someone whose job it is to try and detect fraud. It's totally normal behaviour and it works both ways too. What it might mean is that you might see the potential for fraud because you are looking for it, while I might not because I don't naturally expect it. Of course, I am alive to the potential, so I will be aware of that in looking at any given set of papers but I am coming at it from a far more neutral position.

Sue Pa Key Pa

hullaballoo wrote: »

Also, there is the potential for confirmation bias on your part, as someone whose job it is to try and detect fraud. It's totally normal behaviour and it works both ways too. What it might mean is that you might see the potential for fraud because you are looking for it, while I might not because I don't naturally expect it. Of course, I am alive to the potential, so I will be aware of that in looking at any given set of papers but I am coming at it from a far more neutral position.

I think we are in agreement. I would accept that my 'instinct' would tell me when something is not quite right and if it has fraudulent aspects, I have a duty to point them out. Without proof, I can do nothing and the claim has to be considered legitimate and handled accordingly

By the same token, an equally experienced person in the legal profession would have the same 'instinct' when a client walks in his door looking for representation in support of a fraudulent or exaggerated claim. Again, without proof, a solicitor must act in good faith and represent his client the best they can.

I suppose what I'm really asking is, is it a regular occurrence for a client to walk in to a solicitor's office and blatantly ask how to get a big payday out of a minor incident?