Pearse Doherty questions Insurance CEOs

STB.

is_that_so wrote: »

That's up to the Dail to decide. Grandstanding at a committee hearing doesn't change much.

Unfortunately they have done nothing and it has required the European Commission to step in. Banking regulation, Insurance Regulation. All light touch in Ireland.

The industry is worth 2bn.

90% of the motor insurance market controlled by 6 companies and 80% of business insurance controlled by 6 also.

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

Approximately 20% are fraudulent yet only 1% reported to GardaTherefore, hardly any cases are fraudulent and the insurance companies are spinning yarns. The question is what will happen though, will anything come about? Perhaps remove compulsory car insurance and have everyone at a basic standard, after which they can supplement it at their own cost? Dramatically reduce the figures in the book of quantum combined with removing the egg shell skull rule from law?

Can't agree with the bolded part. If you crash into someone or cause them injury in some way, you should be liable for their injuries....full stop. Trying to weasel out of liability because they suffer from brittle bones or whatever is pretty low.

JohnnyFlash

Doherty is all fart and no follow through. Dude seems to think that pretending to be angry is leadership. It isn’t. SF are notorious for using the committee structures to conduct showpieces like this. That said, he’s better than Mary Lou. She has a voice like a fücking foghorn.

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

That's up to the Dail to decide. Grandstanding at a committee hearing doesn't change much.

THAT (what Doherty did) is the JOB of the committees. What is grandstanding about uncovering fraudulent claims by insurance companies?

Plumbthedepths

JohnnyFlash wrote:

Doherty is all fart and no follow through. Dude seems to think that pretending to be angry is leadership. It isn’t. SF are notorious for using the committee structures to conduct showpieces like this. That said, he’s better than Mary Lou. She has a voice like a fücking foghorn.

Quick question, is he wrong? Simple yes or no will suffice if you can put aside your bias .

JohnnyFlash

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Quick question, is he wrong? Simple yes or no will suffice if you can put aside your bias .

The issues with our insurance industry are complex and myriad, and not the sort of thing that can be broken down into populist soundbites during a short speech. He makes a valid point if looking at the issue from the outrage seats.

is_that_so

FrancieBrady wrote: »

THAT (what Doherty did) is the JOB of the committees. What is grandstanding about uncovering fraudulent claims by insurance companies?

It's actually not and you know how badly PAC have thrown shapes in recent years. If it's so effective what did or will it achieve? They are private companies and being grilled by an "inconsequential" politician is no big deal to them. What they do have to respond to is regulation and legislation. She at them doesn't quite have the same effect.

meeeeh

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Quick question, is he wrong? Simple yes or no will suffice if you can put aside your bias .

Simple yes/no doesn't answer the question. Simple yes/no is good enough for Pearse Doherty and people with pitchforks but actual problem is much more nuanced.

Plumbthedepths

JohnnyFlash wrote:

The issues with our insurance industry are complex and myriad, and not the sort of thing that can be broken down into populist soundbites during a short speech. He makes a valid point if looking at the issue from the outrage seats.

So I will take it as given you cannot set aside your bias. Thanks for confirming.

tayto lover

Blueshoe wrote: »

He did a fantastic job. Backed them into a corner


https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1147182930848038912?s=19

Fair play Doherty.
We’re being ripped off.

SEPT 23 1989

no time for Sinn Fein but that's the end of that argument

tayto lover

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Doherty is all fart and no follow through. Dude seems to think that pretending to be angry is leadership. It isn’t. SF are notorious for using the committee structures to conduct showpieces like this. That said, he’s better than Mary Lou. She has a voice like a fücking foghorn.

Forget about the personalities for a moment and think about the facts.
Doherty has proven that we are being sold a pup.
Now let’s see the Government take action, let’s see them follow through. They seem very silent.

I personally don’t believe they will.

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

It's actually not and you know how badly PAC have thrown shapes in recent years. If it's so effective what did or will it achieve? They are private companies and being grilled by an "inconsequential" politician is no big deal to them. What they do have to respond to is regulation and legislation. She at them doesn't quite have the same effect.

If the sitting government refuse to move on what committees find out then that is not the fault of the committees.

'No big deal'? Clearly you haven't watched people caught redhanded squirm on that video.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

Simple yes/no doesn't answer the question. Simple yes/no is good enough for Pearse Doherty and people with pitchforks but actual problem is much more nuanced.

Maybe. But let's make this the start of a conversation.

If the following is true; industry claims of fraudulent activity, which are used to justify increased premiums for companies whose profits have increased dramatically, are vastly exaggerated, then it is indefensible, even if there are people making false claims (which there unquestionably is).

Plumbthedepths

meeeeh wrote:

Simple yes/no doesn't answer the question. Simple yes/no is good enough for Pearse Doherty and people with pitchforks but actual problem is much more nuanced.

Doherty disputed the fraud figures given by the insurance industry to justify the high cost of insurance yet on examination the percentage figures if fraud are far less and the numbers of actual fraud reported to AGS is atrocious . I guess it is nuanced when we have two sitting government TDs whom themselves attempted insurance fraud.

is_that_so

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the sitting government refuse to move on what committees find out then that is not the fault of the committees.

'No big deal'? Clearly you haven't watched people caught redhanded squirm on that video.

Yeah but to what actual effect to them or their business? They're big boys and girls, they can take a hit.

FrancieBrady

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah but to what actual effect to them or their business?

There will be zilch effect on their business if the sitting government don't act.

They're big boys and girls, they can take a hit.

As pointed out by the poster who posted their profit figures, they have the capacity to take a massive hit alright...at yours and my expense.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe. But let's make this the start of a conversation.

If the following is true; industry claims of fraudulent activity, which are used to justify increased premiums for companies whose profits have increased dramatically, are vastly exaggerated, then it is indefensible, even if there are people making false claims (which there unquestionably is).

It was also exaggerated claims and higg settlements. Yesterdays report shows awards st lower courts increased again in 2018. Liability insurance made loss in 2017. People love to produce how much insurance profits increased in percentage points but it's after a years of loses or minimum profits. I'm not defending insurance companies but if you think Pierce Doherty grandstanding brought us any closer to resolution you are deluded.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

It was also exaggerated claims and higg settlements. Yesterdays report shows awards st lower courts increased again in 2018. Liability insurance made loss in 2017. People love to produce how much insurance profits increased in percentage points but it's after a years of loses or minimum profits. I'm not defending insurance companies but if you think Pierce Doherty grandstanding brought us any closer to resolution you are deluded.

I think the lady doth protest too much.

All summer we have heard stories of the impact increased insurance costs have had on businesses, festivals and so on.

If Pierce Doherty, or anyone else is elected to a role and then carries out the duties of that role as he did here then we shouldn't see him as grandstanding but demand others do so in the same way and that he and others do so continuously.

What was interesting for me was the complete absence of argument from the insurance companies representatives to halt his 'grandstanding'. They had no comeback.

If they are paying out on fraudulent claims, as seems to be the case, then they are saying it is ok because the market will tolerate it. That is very difficult for people who cannot afford insurance increases.

STB.

meeeeh wrote: »

It was also exaggerated claims and higg settlements. Yesterdays report shows awards st lower courts increased again in 2018. Liability insurance made loss in 2017. People love to produce how much insurance profits increased in percentage points but it's after a years of loses or minimum profits. I'm not defending insurance companies but if you think Pierce Doherty grandstanding brought us any closer to resolution you are deluded.

Well you sound like you are consistently on this thread with your look over there responses.

Motor cover for private and commercial motorists insurers combined profits of €125m, while average motor insurance premiums increased by 70% between 2013 and 2016.

Household and commercial property insurance provided combined profits of €84.3m to the 17 firms.

The 17 domestic non-life insurers made combined profits of €227m in 2017, up from €16m in 2016.


These are all published figures.

Jupiter Mulligan

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Doherty disputed the fraud figures given by the insurance industry to justify the high cost of insurance yet on examination the percentage figures if fraud are far less and the numbers of actual fraud reported to AGS is atrocious . I guess it is nuanced when we have two sitting government TDs whom themselves attempted insurance fraud.

Because, as every idiot knows - and here allow me to cite Pearse Doherty as our sample idiot - proving a fraud case is so easy that even a moron like Doherty could do it using his well-thumbed Ladybird Book of Proving Fraud to the Satisfaction of a Judge.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

I think the lady doth protest too much.

All summer we have heard stories of the impact increased insurance costs have had on businesses, festivals and so on.

We had no claims in last 5 years. There was a chance we won't be able to get liability insurance not because it was to expensive but because very few companies are prepared to insure. Our cost of insurance actually stayed the same but it involved months of looking by two different brokers to find an insurer. Do I believe latest Dail performance will make the one bit of difference next year when we try to get liability insurance? No I don't. I hope EU investigation will bring some results and I hope some sort of insurance reform will eventually happen. This might help SF with it's dire numbers though.

Tell me how

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Because, as every idiot knows - and here allow me to cite Pearse Doherty as our sample idiot - proving a fraud case is so easy that even a moron like Doherty could do it using his well-thumbed Ladybird Book of Proving Fraud to the Satisfaction of a Judge.

You probably missed it, or didn't understand it, but it is not the responsibility of the insurance companies to prove fraud. It is simply their responsibility to report it.

Plumbthedepths

Jupiter Mulligan wrote:

Because, as every idiot knows - and here allow me to cite Pearse Doherty as our sample idiot - proving a fraud case is so easy that even a moron like Doherty could do it using his well-thumbed Ladybird Book of Proving Fraud to the Satisfaction of a Judge.

I won't be answering you after this, I have refused to answer you on the Bailey thread considering your posting style.
Curious how you and several others are attacking Doherty but yet ok with the behaviour of the people representing the big insurance companies. Here's a tip less of the name calling. You're an adult, behave like one.

tayto lover

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Because, as every idiot knows - and here allow me to cite Pearse Doherty as our sample idiot - proving a fraud case is so easy that even a moron like Doherty could do it using his well-thumbed Ladybird Book of Proving Fraud to the Satisfaction of a Judge.

How come FG couldn’t do it on behalf of 5he man who gets up early to go to work then?

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

We had no claims in last 5 years. There was a chance we won't be able to get liability insurance not because it was to expensive but because very few companies are prepared to insure. Our cost of insurance actually stayed the same but it involved months of looking by two different brokers to find an insurer. Do I believe latest Dail performance will make the one bit of difference next year when we try to get liability insurance? No I don't. I hope EU investigation will bring some results and I hope some sort of insurance reform will eventually happen. This might help SF with it's dire numbers though.

As I said previously, we elect people to govern and provide oversight. We should applaud those that do and use it as an example for others to follow.
Not just lambast them for grandstanding as doing so is saying to the ones sitting on their hands, "I'm happy enough with your inaction".

STB.

Tell me how wrote: »

You probably missed it, or didn't understand it, but it is not the responsibility of the insurance companies to prove fraud. It is simply their responsibility to report it.

Also quite ironic that they are themselves under investigation by EU Anti trust for fraud.

Phoebas

STB. wrote: »

Well you sound like you are consistently on this thread with your look over there responses.

Motor cover for private and commercial motorists insurers combined profits of €125m, while average motor insurance premiums increased by 70% between 2013 and 2016.

Household and commercial property insurance provided combined profits of €84.3m to the 17 firms.

The 17 domestic non-life insurers made combined profits of €227m in 2017, up from €16m in 2016.


These are all published figures.

They're for the entire insurance industry in Ireland for motor, property and non life?
They're a big step up from what seem to be unsustainable, wafer thin profits, but they don't seem to be particularly excessive..

Are there longer term figures available so we can see the trend?

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

As I said previously, we elect people to govern and provide oversight. We should applaud those that do and use it as an example for others to follow.
Not just lambast them for grandstanding as doing so is saying to the ones sitting on their hands, "I'm happy enough with your inaction".

It's smoke screen pretending they are doing something. I would be more interested in responses about comparable international stas on number of claims and awards made. Percentage of claims that are challenged in courts. Cost of challenging claims in courts. If they think 20% claims are fraudulent then I woud expect at least that amount of claims to be challenged. No actually relevant questions were answered or reported on that I know of.

tayto lover

meeeeh wrote: »

It's smoke screen pretending they are doing something. I would be more interested in responses about comparable international stas on number of claims and awards made. Percentage of claims that are challenged in courts. Cost of challenging claims in courts. If they think 20% claims are fraudulent then I woud expect at least that amount of claims to be challenged. No actually relevant questions were answered or reported on that I know of.

You need to watch the video again regarding the 20%.
Doherty backed them into a corner and they had no explanation.
They were like rabbits in the headlights. No answers.