A fcuk you to insurance companies

trixiebust

I had a very minor accident in 2011 ( about 5kph on a roundabout ).

Well the final bill arrived yesterday. The total paid out.... 85k!!!

Injuries that were described as
" soft tissue " resulting in this amount of a payoff are diabolical. I'm beyond horrified at the amount of money being paid on my behalf.

To the doctor who signed off on these injuries, to the judge who awarded so much, to the solicitor who's earned a nice payday - fcuk you all. Life is tough at the minute & this compounds it all for me, so again - fcuk you all.

This country is a joke.

LirW

Were you by chance the other party involved into the roundabout accidents where the same guy claimed 2 or 3 times (2 in the same roundabout) in Mayo somewhere and he got this insane payout?

Off to the news you go, they love stories like that.

trixiebust

LirW wrote:

Were you by chance the other party involved into the roundabout accidents where the same guy claimed 2 or 3 times (2 in the same roundabout) in Mayo somewhere and he got this insane payout?

LirW wrote:

Off to the news you go, they love stories like that.

No - happened in Mitchelstown. I'd love to know where to go with this, be it a politician or something.

The claimant got 45k, the rest divvied up between the professions.

LirW

So, how's the insurance premium doing?


No honestly I'd love to say something stupid but I honestly can't process this.

lawred2

trixiebust wrote: »

No - happened in Mitchelstown. I'd love to know where to go with this, be it a politician or something.

The claimant got 45k, the rest divvied up between the professions.

well there you go..

can't bate a vested interest

LirW

Even so, 45k for a soft tissue injury is ridiculous.

trixiebust

Is there anywhere I can query this? I've tried contacting my insurance company, I'm waiting for a call back ( since yesterday ). It's like no one cares - it's paid out & that's that.

Sue Pa Key Pa

So your thread title is a big fcuk you to your insurance company, yet it appears that they have being fighting on your behalf since 2011 to minimise the loss. You should address your anger towards the person who claimed against you and the professionals that supported and facilitated this.

On a practical note, as the accident was in 2011, surely you have already incurred any additional premium increases because of it and built your NCB back up?

.......

This post has been deleted.

delboythedub

Dashcam , Dashcam , Dashcam , end

trixiebust

The medical report, which I still have, stated a recovery time of 3 to 6 months. It's basically a sore back for a while.Oh, anxiety was also included - client previously suffering, which was exacerbated by the ' crash '.

theoneeyedman

trixiebust wrote: »

The claimant got 45k, the rest divvied up between the professions.

Is that a typical proportion, ie almost 50/50?
Janey...

trixiebust

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

So your thread title is a big fcuk you to your insurance company, yet it appears that they have being fighting on your behalf since 2011 to minimise the loss. You should address your anger towards the person who claimed against you and the professionals that supported and facilitated this.

I don't understand how they have been fighting to minimise a loss. Do you think 85k means they fought it well?

trixiebust

delboythedub wrote:

Dashcam , Dashcam , Dashcam , end

I have one now - soon to be two.

Sue Pa Key Pa

trixiebust wrote:

I don't understand how they have been fighting to minimise a loss. Do you think 85k means they fought it well?

They appear to have spent up to 6 years fighting off the 3rd party. If the OP was liable for the accident, it means they concentrated their efforts on minimising the extent of the payout. They obviously accepted the OP "s version that it was a minor 5mph impact.

Then the 3rd party, aided by a legal team whose sole motivation is justice for the victim, weighs in with a medical report from a very expensive consultant confirming that the patient said he is feeling pain.

When liability is cut and dry, insurers try and settle early to keep costs down. When they come across an incident where they feel there is something not right, they will honour their duty to defend it as best they can. I obviously don't know the details of the case, but to answer your question, I think they gave it a good shot but when the claimant has his ducks in a line, it is a hard battle to win.

trixiebust

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

They appear to have spent up to 6 years fighting off the 3rd party. If the OP was liable for the accident, it means they concentrated their efforts on minimising the extent of the payout. They obviously accepted the OP "s version that it was a minor 5mph impact.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

Then the 3rd party, aided by a legal team whose sole motivation is justice for the victim, weighs in with a medical report from a very expensive consultant confirming that the patient said he is feeling pain.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

When liability is cut and dry, insurers try and settle early to keep costs down. When they come across an incident where they feel there is something not right, they will honour their duty to defend it as best they can. I obviously don't know the details of the case, but to answer your question, I think they gave it a good shot but when the claimant has his ducks in a line, it is a hard battle to win.

So, basically tough ****. Ireland in a nutshell.

Rubberchikken

Buy a camera for the car. Wouldn't drive without one.
I agree layouts are ridiculous. Yes maybe some soft tissue injury leads to operations in later years but mot all of them.
Someitimas I think the insurance companies are happy to offload whatever they can just to be done, and to he'll with the honest folk.
But what can you do and :mad:

Sue Pa Key Pa

trixiebust wrote:

So, basically tough ****. Ireland in a nutshell.

I personally think that the levels of compensation available in Ireland are overly generous, even for genuine claims. As a society, we have become very self entitled and will make anyone suffer if they intrude in our bubble. We are too small an economy to absorb the bills that come with this behaviour and now we have outrageous insurance premiums as an example

Sue Pa Key Pa

Rubberchikken wrote:

Buy a camera for the car. Wouldn't drive without one. I agree layouts are ridiculous. Yes maybe some soft tissue injury leads to operations in later years but mot all of them. Someitimas I think the insurance companies are happy to offload whatever they can just to be done, and to he'll with the honest folk. But what can you do and

Defending their client for 6 years is not an insurer offloading whatever they can.

bloodless_coup

Someone crashed into me years ago I got the damage to my car paid for. Didn't occur to me at all to claim any kind of injury.

Hearing about all these massive payouts, I'm sorry I didn't!

TallGlass

delboythedub wrote: »

Dashcam , Dashcam , Dashcam , end

Insurance companies don't care if you have a dash cam or not to be honest. They don't discount your premium for having one.

Seth Brundle

trixiebust wrote: »

I had a very minor accident in 2011 ( about 5kph on a roundabout ).

...

Injuries that were described as
" soft tissue " resulting in this amount of a payoff are diabolical. I'm beyond horrified at the amount of money being paid on my behalf.

To the doctor who signed off on these injuries, to the judge who awarded so much, to the solicitor who's earned a nice payday - fcuk you all. Life is tough at the minute & this compounds it all for me, so again - fcuk you all.

This country is a joke.

I had a soft tissue injury many years ago. I'm still suffering now.
The GP reckoned it would disappear in about 6 months but was she wrong.
As for those involved including the solicitor and the consultant, should they work for free or what rate should these experts charge for in your expert opinion?

trixiebust wrote: »

The medical report, which I still have, stated a recovery time of 3 to 6 months. It's basically a sore back for a while.Oh, anxiety was also included - client previously suffering, which was exacerbated by the ' crash '.

What's your point?
Do you think they were lying? Other than your begrudgery what evidence have you of this?

trixiebust

TallGlass wrote:

Insurance companies don't care if you have a dash cam or not to be honest. They don't discount your premium for having one.

I have a front fitted now,when renewal time came, I rang & asked that question. I got the same answer as you too, "it's not something we do atm".

Seth Brundle

TallGlass wrote: »

Insurance companies don't care if you have a dash cam or not to be honest. They don't discount your premium for having one.

They do if it proves liability in favour of their client.

RustyNut

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I personally think that the levels of compensation available in Ireland are overly generous, even for genuine claims.

What ever about payments to injured parties being overly generous the payments extracted by the legal profession are scandalous.

TallGlass

trixiebust wrote: »

I have a front fitted now,when renewal time came, I rang & asked that question. I got the same answer as you too, "it's not something we do atm".

I have a 400€ system in my car. I also asked them about advanced driving discounts. Again told no.

Its like they don't want to give any type of incentive for driving well. Yet wonder why there are so many claims.

jjpep

Am, shouldn't you be taking from this that you need to be a more careful driver? You hit someone, caused them injury which apparently was 'worth' 45k in damage done to that person.

TallGlass

RustyNut wrote: »

What ever about payments to injured parties being overly generous the payments extracted by the legal profession are scandalous.

Exactly. Its total abuse like the free legal aid system. Literally like a revolving door.

beefburrito

Sounds like the bottle of bubbly was cracked open.

I think €45,000 would have probably been 15,000 if it was settled.

Your legal team may have been dragging their feet and been incompetent,so as time moves on 15 goes to 30 and 30 goes to 45 and so on.

Usually takes between 2 and 3 year's to settle a case like this.

Are you sure it was 5 kph as my car would probably do 20kph without even touching the accelerator in first gear....

Sue Pa Key Pa

TallGlass wrote:

Its like they don't want to give any type of incentive for driving well. Yet wonder why there are so many claims.

It is madness that insurers don't offer discounts for cameras in cars (many do for haulage fleets). Even if they prove you are in the wrong, it would allow Insurers settle quickly and keep costs down. It also would improve PR between Insurer and policyholder, as they could go the footage together and explain why they have made their decision. It will come, as will the increase in vehicle telematrics

trixiebust

kbannon wrote:

What's your point? Do you think they were lying? Other than your begrudgery what evidence have you of this?

I absolutely think they were lying. The report reads like a glorified sore back. A healing time of 3 to 6 months.


Begrudgery?? I had a very, very minor tip with another car, 45k + 45k in costs is the result. This isn't begrudgery, it's common sense. Figures like this are lunacy.