Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pearse Doherty questions Insurance CEOs

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    pearcider
    Registered Users Posts: 1,036 ✭✭✭pearcider


    Insurance used to make a lot of their money from interest on investments. With interest rates at zero to support the massive fake debt economy they, much like the banks, are goosed. They blame fraud because they can’t do anything about interest rates and criticism of the central planners is pointless. The whole world is in a massive liquidity trap. Raise interest rates and crash the global economy. Or keep them low and gradually destroy the balance sheets of savers and financial institutions. Wait until they bring in negative interest rates. Then the fun starts.


  • Options
    #63
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    enricoh wrote: »
    If there's that much money to be made in insurance in ireland surely uk n eu insurers would flock here to make a killing.

    Did someone say Cartel?
    enricoh wrote: »
    They're not though, only reason being our payouts are rediculous, 4.5 times that of the uk for whiplash. Make whiplash payout the same as the uk,

    Car insurance is more expensive in the UK than Ireland.

    But yeah, whiplash, something something.

    Look over there
    >


  • Options
    #64
    christy c
    Registered Users Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭christy c


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Forget about the personalities for a moment and think about the facts.

    That's the key point here, I would never vote for him or his party because of the populist nonsense they came out with post bailout. However he has shown them up big time here


  • Options
    #65
    reg114
    Registered Users Posts: 687 ✭✭✭reg114


    Doherty's questioning ironically shows the insurance companies' are themselves guilty of lying and fraudulently gouging their own customers, but what will the ramifications be ? FG and FF have known that this practice has been going on but have done nothing, indeed it was EU authorities who raided the offices of insurance companies here while our own regulators were asleep on the job.

    Plus, the legislation to find people in contempt of court who file fraudulent has still not been enacted, which is itself a disgrace you have to lay at the feet of the defacto FG FF coalition gov.


  • Options
    #66
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Cordell


    tayto lover wrote: »
    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.

    Fair play to him for calling them out on their lies and generally for tearing them a new one.

    But, my understanding is this: they see 20% fraudulent claims, yet they choose not to fight them far various reasons, mainly cost I suppose. Also, if they settle they can't report it to the Garda, right? Still, they count them as fraudulent.
    Exposing the lies is not enough.

    I think they have an explanation that they cannot give: settling suspected claims can mean they are enabling of insurance fraud. They cannot admit this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Boggles wrote: »
    Did someone say Cartel
    Earlier we heard that 17 property insurers made €84m in profit - that's an average of €5m each.

    They must be the biggest, most incompetent cartel ever.


  • Options
    #68
    patmahe
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭patmahe


    No strong allegiances to any political party here but I am very impressed with Pearse taking these squirming fecks apart, and none of them, not one had an answer to his points.


  • Options
    #69
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Earlier we heard that 17 property insurers made €84m in profit - that's an average of €5m each.

    They must be the biggest, most incompetent cartel ever.

    Is there many whiplash injury claims in property?

    :confused:


  • Options
    #70
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Boggles wrote: »
    Is there many whiplash injury claims in property?

    :confused:
    The cartel(s) in the insurance sector are highly specialised and only conspire around one sector and within that sector they just concentrate their efforts on one claim type.

    OK. No longer confused.


  • Options
    #71
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Phoebas wrote: »
    The cartel(s) in the insurance sector are highly specialised and only conspire around one sector and within that sector they just concentrate their efforts on one claim type.

    OK. No longer confused.

    You do realize this isn't my opinion?

    One insurer left the market citing the cartel as the reason, and then sure there is the whole EU investigation into cartel activity.

    Again, I'm not making this up or asking you to believe me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Boggles wrote: »
    You do realize this isn't my opinion?

    One insurer left the market citing the cartel as the reason, and then sure there is the whole EU investigation into cartel activity.

    Again, I'm not making this up or asking you to believe me.
    Yeah - that just makes it someone else's opinion.


  • Options
    #73
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Yeah - that just makes it someone else's opinion.

    Yes an insurance company that operated in the market and the EU Commission, as well as numerous elected officials who have studied the practice and questioned the main players.

    Now I have all ready conceded that trumps my knowledge of the situation.

    So tell me exactly how it doesn't trumps yours?


  • Options
    #74
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 69,184 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    And way way late to the party come our distinguished media who should have been on this years ago, if they were anything like decent journalists.


    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-insurance-industry-claims-about-fraud-do-not-add-up-1.3949429?fbclid=IwAR0wPrXjVrxevZHaBOuxYbMvkOOMZOK977oykl29w-SGrLkblwb-OdJ-tLc


  • Options
    #75
    smurgen
    Registered Users Posts: 6,933 ✭✭✭smurgen


    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.

    You think someone doing their job is grandstanding?


  • Options
    #76
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    They certainly didn't cover themselves in any glory there but as per usual, people are taking the literal definition of something and like a dog with a bone they run with it.

    Fraudulent claims are not only related to false claims ie an incident did not happen or an incident did happen but was completely engineered (set up) by the claimants.

    Fraudulent claims encompass things like someone being tipped from behind in slow moving traffic. An incident / accident did occur and that is not in question however was the incident / accident of sufficient force to cause a neck or back injury, to cause PTSD, to cause the quality of someone's life to be significantly, negatively impacted?

    Most likely no, but the incident did occur and it is the third parties right to claim for it.

    Maria Bailey is a prime example. An incident did occur however she lied as to the extent of her injuries and how they affected her. That is a fraudulent claim however it is not something the guards would entertain as she did not break any laws, she may have embellished / out right lied about her injuries but thats as far as it goes.

    That is the major issue.

    I absolutely guarantee that when awards are capped for the likes of whiplash, and a harder line is taken by judges with relation to claims that are obviously soft, and when real penalties for people that try to defraud insurers are introduced, premiums will reduce. Bookmark this post and come back in a couple of years when hopefully these measures have been introduced and we will see.


  • Options
    #77
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


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


    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.
    The relationship with insurance is more complicated. They are currently just about the only entities assertively contesting claims. As for the expense it does seem to be in very specific areas and it's not clear why that can't be addressed. Health insurance aside, I've seen little rise in premia, quiet the opposite actually. I also think it's about people inclined to settle with the added legal commission only to find their premia shoot up.


  • Options
    #78
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    Maria Bailey is a prime example. An incident did occur however she lied as to the extent of her injuries and how they affected her. That is a fraudulent claim however it is not something the guards would entertain as she did not break any laws, she may have embellished / out right lied about her injuries but thats as far as it goes.
    .
    .The law, the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, under sections 14 and 25, makes it a criminal offence to invent accidents, feign injuries, or exaggerate elements of either


  • Options
    #79
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    smurgen wrote: »
    You think someone doing their job is grandstanding?
    That is his job - grandstanding!


  • Options
    #80
    bluefinger
    Registered Users Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭bluefinger


    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.

    Not a sf voter, but surely in the myriad of issues you refer to, the role of insurance companies reporting fraud and being transparent around pricing are a couple of them? I think Doherty did this well here.


  • Options
    #81
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 40,236 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    I absolutely guarantee that when awards are capped for the likes of whiplash,

    Really? We keep being hit with the "stat" whiplash payouts are 4.5 times more than the UK.

    Car insurance is more expensive over there than here.

    Riddle me that?
    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    and a harder line is taken by judges with relation to claims that are obviously soft,

    The vast vast majority of claims don't get near a court or a Judge.

    The biggest claims that do are usually medical negligence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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.

    It's not weaselling out of it. It is terribly unfair that someone is entitled to extra damages compared to a less fragile person just because of an underlying problem. In the context of motor insurance, considering the money that funds such claims comes from other drivers, it is unfair on the other drivers. Perhaps set a standard of a reasonable person instead.


  • Options
    #83
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    .

    Every days a school day. One has to wonder then why clear cut cases like this are not pursued. Would it be down to the fact that she withdrew the claim I wonder?


  • Options
    #84
    mfceiling
    Registered Users Posts: 12,844 ✭✭✭✭mfceiling


    Boggles wrote: »
    Really? We keep being hit with the "stat" whiplash payouts are 4.5 times more than the UK.

    Car insurance is more expensive over there than here.

    Riddle me that?.

    Is it more expensive? In my experience I've always known their insurance premiums to be less than ours.


  • Options
    #85
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Aye not a fan of Sinn Fein, but he did an excellent job there. He'd do a much better job than Mary Lou I feel.

    Mary Lou would go into outrage mode straight away. P.D. did well to given him credit. Always wondered why he wasn't chosen as leader instead of Mary Lou. On a side note, I see that the SF council have conducted an internal review and Mary Lou is doing fine. Hope she remains in place as leader for many years to come.
    meeeeh wrote: »
    I bet there is no point in reporting suspected fraudulent claims. Besides what happens when claims are just exaggerated, it's not like Maria Bailey and similar will be prosecuted for exaggerating their injuries.

    Nothing happens in Ireland. You won't go to jail and you'll still get quotes. SF would be one of the first parties complaining if an insurance fraudster was sent down.


  • Options
    #86
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 52,016 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Earlier we heard that 17 property insurers made €84m in profit - that's an average of €5m each.

    They must be the biggest, most incompetent cartel ever.

    That’s just deflecting in fairness.
    We are being ripped off and the excuse for ripping us off doesn’t hold water.
    The Govt should have dealt with this matter but chose to turn a blind eye.
    It’s the worker who needs his car most and who is being ripped off, the same worker that Leo said he’d look after.


  • Options
    #87
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    Every days a school day. One has to wonder then why clear cut cases like this are not pursued. Would it be down to the fact that she withdrew the claim I wonder?

    My first guess would be it's because she's a sitting member of a govt party, with friends in the right places.

    My second guess would be because of the same friends in high places previously mentioned are embroiled in it too.

    They're only guesses mind you, I can only imagine the reaction from FG had this involved the likes of Paul Murphy or Pearse Doherty.

    Guards would have been giving the likes of them the 'early knock' by now would be my third guess.

    Either way, currently it appears FG endorse one (not counting Farrell) taking spurious (and arguably fraudulent) insurance claims against small businesses, based on exaggerating their injuries - a criminal offence based on the below.


  • Options
    #88
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    It was dropped because she withdrew the claim and pursing a case like that would be a waste of money.
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    My first guess would be it's because she's a sitting member of a govt party, with friends in the right places.

    Wrong.
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    My second guess would be because of the same friends in high places previously mentioned are embroiled in it too.

    Wrong again.
    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Guards would have been giving the likes of them the 'early knock' by now would be my third guess.

    For insurance fraud?


  • Options
    #89
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 52,016 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Berserker wrote: »
    It was dropped because she withdrew the claim and pursing a case like that would be a waste of money.



    Wrong.



    Wrong again.



    For insurance fraud?
    Why did she make a claim in the first place then?
    And why all the lies?


  • Options
    #90
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Berserker wrote:
    It was dropped because she withdrew the claim and pursing a case like that would be a waste of money.


    Or that the Dean was intent on fully defending themselves and had CCTV footage of the 'accident' . Bailey's SOR interview did her enormous damage as well. Plus the lies submitted to the court doubtful that they were helpful to her claim.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Why did she make a claim in the first place then?
    And why all the lies?

    She thought she'd get a few euro for herself. On receiving some more attention, the lies came out to try and cover things up and when things got really hot, she dropped the claim.


Advertisement