Personal injury claim following a motor accident

Lux23

My partner was recently in a motor accident. They were driving along and didn't break on time and they went into the back of the car in front of them - it was basically his fault. It wasn't much of a crash, they just hit off the trailer hitch in the car in front and there was no visible damage to either car. The Guards were called and they said "there's no damage to either car and don't be bothering us as we are very busy". Anyway insurance details were swapped and a couple of weeks later my partner received a letter from a solicitor making a claim of personal injury. He contacted his insurance company who asked him to fill in some forms and send back relevant material. There was no Garda report filed. I have two questions.

1) If you're claiming personal injuries, would you have to prove the accident was bad enough so that you got these injuries in the accident?
2) Wouldn't there need to be a Garda report?

billybonkers

Lawyer up!

Lux23

I don't see the need to just yet as the insurance company seem to be happy enough to deal with it now.

billybonkers

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't see the need to just yet as the insurance company seem to be happy enough to deal with it now.

Your explanation of the accident isn't very clear.

Did someone crash into him or did he crash into someone else?

Who admitted fault in the accident?

Lux23

My partner crashed into the back of someone and he is pretty certain it was his fault. But as I said the claimant is asking to be compensated for a personal injury claim, which I find odd considering at the same time they aren't claiming there was any damage to the car?

callaway92

Lux23 wrote: »

My partner crashed into the back of someone and he is pretty certain it was his fault. But as I said the claimant is asking to be compensated for a personal injury claim, which I find odd considering at the same time they aren't claiming there was any damage to the car?

Nothing odd about it at all

Lux23

Why?

TOEJOE

Was backended on three occasions had one claim damage done to my car 2500.i did feel a sore back on each occasion but it improved in a few days .Whats going on out there is a disgrace!,,,

Lux23

Listen if it is a genuine claim, we don't care. But it seems odd that a slight ding which resulted in no damage to the car was strong enough to warrant a personal injury claim. Then again, I am no engineer so maybe I am very wrong.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Lux23

I don't think I believe that. It can't be all that straight forward and if it is then our system is seriously f****d up.

Donal55

Can't see the problem, 'didn't break in time and hit the other guy', all thats left is for the PIAB or solicitors to sort out the costs.

emeldc

Lux23 wrote: »

Listen if it is a genuine claim, we don't care. But it seems odd that a slight ding which resulted in no damage to the car was strong enough to warrant a personal injury claim. Then again, I am no engineer so maybe I am very wrong.

Unfortunately, it seems any kind of a knock or bump will result in a back/neck injury claim these days resulting in €15K + payouts, EACH. That's why insurance is the way it is. I'm finding hard to believe you are so naive about it. It's practically in the news weekly if not daily.

Atlantic Dawn

Not much you can do really, your insurer will decide if they want to pay out before it goes to court or not. I'd presume they will do a background check against the claimant to see they are not someone with multiple claims made.

Special Circumstances

Lux23 wrote: »

Why?

Necks are not as strong as tow hitches Amazingly.

In a way everybody might be better without tow hitches - they transmit the impact without any crumbling or creasing to dissipate the force.

Has you husband had the crash bar at the front of his car checked. If there was any force in it at all you'd expected the tow hitch to punch through something that didn't have solid metal behind it but if it did hit near the impact bar then it's conceivable that the plastic bits would deflect and bounce back but the metal impact bar might be dented.

Lux23

emeldc wrote: »

Unfortunately, it seems any kind of a knock or bump will result in a back/neck injury claim these days resulting in €15K + payouts, EACH. That's why insurance is the way it is. I'm finding hard to believe you are so naive about it. It's practically in the news weekly if not daily.

I have read the opinion articles by Insurance Ireland, and the like, blaming hikes on a claim culture but as the Joint Oireachtas committee looking into issue found the data really didn't support this view. In my opinion, it does contribute, but it was most likely the additional solvency requirements placed on insurance companies in recent years that led to increasing premiums.

Lux23

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Necks are not as strong as tow hitches Amazingly.

In a way everybody might be better without tow hitches - they transmit the impact without any crumbling or creasing to dissipate the force.

Has you husband had the crash bar at the front of his car checked. If there was any force in it at all you'd expected the tow hitch to punch through something that didn't have solid metal behind it but if it did hit near the impact bar then it's conceivable that the plastic bits would deflect and bounce back but the metal impact bar might be dented.

He just passed the NCT (probably wouldn't tell you much though). And there are a few cracks in the licence plate where he hit the tow hitch, but the mechanic who checked his car over afterwards didn't see any damage. But maybe those cracks are enough to prove injury was possible.

Sue Pa Key Pa

If your partner rear ended the 3rd party and they have made their intention know that they intend to seek compensation for injuries, they will succeed providing;

a) They can find a consultant willing to sign a medical report saying 'soft tissue damage'
b) A solicitor is prepared to state ' my client has suffered severe personal injury and we call on you to admit liability'

What are the odds on finding those two people???

Sorry for your trouble OP, we are living in a compo culture and it is a free for all and there is nothing your insurer can do to defend your position in the face of the above.

Lux23

Very true. Will just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

December2012

You can suffer from soft tissue injury without hugely suffering damage to your car.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Sorry for your trouble OP, we are living in a compo culture and it is a free for all and there is nothing your insurer can do to defend your position in the face of the above.

To be fair - having some regard and respect for other road users by paying more attention to the road would go a long way to reducing compo claims

boardsuser1

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

If your partner rear ended the 3rd party and they have made their intention know that they intend to seek compensation for injuries, they will succeed providing;

a) They can find a consultant willing to sign a medical report saying 'soft tissue damage'
b) A solicitor is prepared to state ' my client has suffered severe personal injury and we call on you to admit liability'

What are the odds on finding those two people???

Sorry for your trouble OP, we are living in a compo culture and it is a free for all and there is nothing your insurer can do to defend your position in the face of the above.

Happened my aunt 15 months ago, it was a hit and run, but got the reg.

It took the case to go to court (criminal proceedings) for her to get the insurers details.

She went to the doctor about this and a pregnancy, the doctor recorded the pregnancy but not the RTC. (Doctor has a poor reputation in that area)

Now she has to go to a solicitor as the insurance company are refusing to pay out.

P.S

There was 1k worth of material damage which they did pay for and there was a criminal conviction in the case also.

Special Circumstances

December2012 wrote: »

You can suffer from soft tissue injury without hugely suffering damage to your car.

Neck turned the wrong way at the wrong time or whatever. It's as simple as somebody else putting their back out picking up lego.

Lux23

Special Circumstances wrote: »

To be fair - having some regard and respect for other road users by paying more attention to the road would go a long way to reducing compo claims

Accidents will always happen though or why else would we all need motor insurance?

Quackster

Special Circumstances wrote: »

To be fair - having some regard and respect for other road users by paying more attention to the road would go a long way to reducing compo claims

As would greedy types claiming for the slightest 'injury'!

Pat Mustard

Lux23 wrote: »

I have read the opinion articles by Insurance Ireland, and the like, blaming hikes on a claim culture but as the Joint Oireachtas committee looking into issue found the data really didn't support this view. In my opinion, it does contribute, but it was most likely the additional solvency requirements placed on insurance companies in recent years that led to increasing premiums.

There was a recent report on the cost of motor insurance. The Cost of Insurance Working Group "did not find that legal costs were a major contributory factor in the recent increase in premiums" (p12).

The reports which say otherwise are from the insurance companies, who have refused to release their information on cost of claims so far. However, if the recommendations of the Working Group come into play, they will have to release their information.

The insurance companies have vested interests in telling people that the costs of compensation and legal costs are the reason for the insurance hikes.

We now know that this is untrue.

Lux23

Did I say something different to that Pat?

Nody

Lux23 wrote: »

I have read the opinion articles by Insurance Ireland, and the like, blaming hikes on a claim culture but as the Joint Oireachtas committee looking into issue found the data really didn't support this view. In my opinion, it does contribute, but it was most likely the additional solvency requirements placed on insurance companies in recent years that led to increasing premiums.

You are aware that the normal claim rate for Whiplash would be around 3% for accidents; in Ireland it's closer to 80%... Then was the minor fact when they raised the claim amounts by courts suddenly the payouts climbed by over 5k per claim the same year, pure coincidence for sure. And of course the injury board implemented to reduce the number of court claims now have gone out recommending raising the claim amounts across the board as well which means solicitors will simply ask for even more in court going forward.

Then of course there's the complete failure of the state to control the insurance companies coming in under selling policies and then going bankrupt and forcing the other insurance companies to charge a levy to pay for the claims from the companies that were underselling them in the first place.

And Pat you really do yourself no service when you intentionally ignore the rest of the sentence like that and the one following it as it gives a completely different meaning so here's the part you skipped:

it found that the proportion of legal costs and non-legal costs attributed to the overall claim settlement amount are relevant. Given the assertions by stakeholders in this regard and the introduction of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, it recommends a number of reviews to take place in relation to legal costs.

Suddenly those costs actually do matter and should also be reviewed on a larger scale.

Triangle

For the OP - IF you have pictures at the time of accident showing no damage and if you have the guards version saying it was only a tip (in writing) then MAYBE the Insurance company might fight the claim.

Unfortunately, if it goes to court then more than likely (from past experience) the judge might just give a payout and then the Insurance company will be stuck with the payout AND the legal fees for both sides. Recently there has been signs that the judges are putting more thought into their decisions, but there is a lot of belief in them damaged that now needs repaired.

Perhaps if the claimant realised it wasn't clean money and he was actually hurting you - then they wouldn't have the same view of claiming.

For Pat Mustard - honestly, take off your tin foil hat!! Insurance companies are in it to make a profit and there are over 40 in the insurance market here. All competing against each other. If you think they want to payout on potential fraud cases - you need to question that! It makes financial sense for them to have low claim costs as any business run with high loss ratios is not going to last long.

Special Circumstances

Triangle wrote: »

Perhaps if the claimant realised it wasn't clean money and he was actually hurting you - then they wouldn't have the same view of claiming.

LOL... rear ender is the injured party and the guy who got hit is a scamming scumbag. Automatically.

The insurance company propaganda is paying off!

Maybe if people stopped expecting these damn filthy peasants to promise to suffer in silence and to apologise for getting in the way... maybe then the amount of accidents would decline. Seriously, you have no right to be ramming law abiding people from behind with your car.

Lux23

Neither are scumbags, that's just a nonsense statement.