Pearse Doherty questions Insurance CEOs

Plumbthedepths

Berserker wrote:

Because like countless people in the country, 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.

She claimed she had an open and shut case on legal advice she received, seems to contradict what you are saying.

tayto lover

Berserker wrote: »

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.

Not according to what she said on SOR. She was still digging then.

Berserker

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

She claimed she had an open and shut case on legal advice she received, seems to contradict what you are saying.

We'll the legal advice she received turned out to be incorrect. We've seen plenty of ridiculous payouts time and time again, so her case may have appeared to be rock solid by those standards.

Jurgen The German

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?

I'm not familiar with UK pricing but their market size dwarfs the irish market so perhaps that's why, if indeed what you are saying is correct.

Boggles wrote: »

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

Why would you say that is?

Could it possibly be that going to court and losing as is the case more often than not vs settling out of court for a lower amount and less legal expenses is the prudent move?

If payments are capped and a harder line is taken with bogey claims then this means that less cases will come before the courts. If insurers are confident that they will successfully defend a bogey claim they are less likely to settle out of court. If people run the risk of being hit with a legal bill or possible criminal charges for making a bogey claim then they are much less likely to make bogey claims.

Less claims = less payouts = lower premiums.

It's really is that simple.

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Less claims = less payouts = lower premiums. More Profits.

But in reality.

meeeeh

smurgen wrote: »

You think someone doing their job is grandstanding?

How long are premiums going up and how long is Doherty in Dail and yet he figured only now this is an issue. Eu started looking into it sooner. If that's doing his job I 'd hate to know what he is like when he isn't doing his job.

Tell me how

meeeeh wrote: »

How long are premiums going up and how long Docherty is Dail and yet he figured only now this is an issue. Eu started looking into it sooner. If that's doing his job I 'd hate to know what he is like when he isn't doing his job.

Meeeeh, why are you so exercised by this?

If it wasn't Pierce Doherty asking the question, do you think it should garner more attention and be a watermark in the conversation on insurance practices?

We all know politicians appear to be motivated by personal, party, public in that order at times but leaving out Pierce's long term behaviour, I don't see how you can look at this interaction and feel that the only thing of note is that he was just looking for attention.

If we expect politicians to act with high morals and for the public good, we have to demand this and recognize it when they appear to do so. Then it is easier to hammer them when they do drop the ball.

(It's Doherty as well by the way, that c is annoying enough when inserted verbally but to write it is careless)

Plumbthedepths

meeeeh wrote:

How long are premiums going up and how long Docherty is Dail and yet he figured only now this is an issue. Eu started looking into it sooner. If that's doing his job I 'd hate to know what he is like when he isn't doing his job.

Always the fault of the TD not in government, I think FG has longer serving TDs than Doherty what were they at?. What were the multiple FG TD's doing for the last 8 years? Particularly as they are part of a government that could address this problem. Why didn't the government task the competition authority with investigating the insurance industry.

Assetbacked

Assetbacked wrote: »

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.

I disagree. Conversely, it is most unfair of someone with an underlying condition to receive less compensation because they are more easily injured. If you injure someone, you pay according to their injuries, in my book. You don't give them a set fee of €x,000 and be done with it.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Did you watch the video at all? The 20% figure is, for all intents and purposes, completley made up. It was bandied about as a means for justification of the increased premiums. When challenged, it turns out the real figure is somewhere between 0.5% and 5%, meaning their justification is unfounded.

They don't really think 20% of claims are fraudulent, they're pretending they do so they can squeeze another couple of 100 quid out of you this year and probably next year.

I read an article a few years ago that stated the insurance companies used their cash reserves to make money through investments, property being a big one in Ireland. Once the recession hit, those reserves dwindled so they had to get them back to a level where they could cover a spate of claims, should they arise, so jacked up the premiums. Once they reached a comfortable level again they thought: "hey, we can just keep doing this and make even more money this way".

I'll see if I can dig it out.

Jurgen The German

Boggles wrote: »

But in reality.

You can take the Joe Duffy listener stance if you wish sir, however, I will be proven right.

meeeeh

Tell me how wrote: »

Meeeeh, why are you so exercised by this?

If it wasn't Pierce Doherty asking the question, do you think it should garner more attention and be a watermark in the conversation on insurance practices?

We all know politicians appear to be motivated by personal, party, public in that order at times but leaving out Pierce's long term behaviour, I don't see how you can look at this interaction and feel that the only thing of note is that he was just looking for attention.

If we expect politicians to act with high morals and for the public good, we have to demand this and recognize it when they appear to do so. Then it is easier to hammer them when they do drop the ball.

Because I think he was too narrow. He went in with intention to score a few political points without going deeper into the problem. It's superficial and it's too late.

We could lose our business and 12 people could lose their jobs if this continues. I haven't heard Pierce Doherty before highlighting the issues around insurance much, some other politicians did. Different facilities are closing, business organisations are pointing out the issues, retired judges are writing reports and I should applaud Pierce Doherty because he finally started to care. And even that only in the way that doesn't lose him points with the base.

You know what my first thought was when I heard about Maria Bailey incident? Great now maybe they will start to act if it costs them votes.

is_that_so

Boggles wrote: »

But in reality.

People shop around. Family member does it religiously every year for anything they pay for. Insurance companies tend to be more price sensitive with personal customers. Commercial it seems is a very different story.

RustyNut

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.

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.

Farrell's case is worse imo. Not only did he bring a dodgy case he attempted to back it up with photographs that had nothing to do with the incident he claimed for. If ever a case should be referred to AGS for investigation this is it, but it would seem according to some posters here that Doherty is the problem not the condoning of this behaviour by Fine Gael.

I'm not a SF voter* but well played Pierce.



This whole insurance issue might well change that.

STB.

meeeeh wrote: »

How long are premiums going up and how long is Doherty in Dail and yet he figured only now this is an issue. Eu started looking into it sooner. If that's doing his job I 'd hate to know what he is like when he isn't doing his job.

Talk about ridiculously and badly misdirected questions.

There is actually a Junior Minister who is responsible for insurance. His name is Michael D'Arcy and he is FG. He is in government.

It took a member of a non governmental party at an Oireachtas Commitee to expose the most simplest of mathematical equations, that the insurance industry's claims about Fraud did not add up. The video has gone viral, so NOW the media will give it the attention it deserves. It shouldn't take opposition TD's or investigative journalists to get a government Minister with specific responsibilties to do their job.

I am no SF supporter but it was also a Sinn Féin Private Members' Bill that proposed that insurers would be forced to disclose more information when premiums rise, and that was 4 months ago.

The lack of government action has resulting in the EU having to intervene and are separately investigating the insurance industry under anti trust law.

Finally I gather the man's name is Pearse as in Padraig Pearse. Not Pierce as in Pierce Brosnan.

RustyNut

STB. wrote: »

Talk about ridiculously and badly misdirected questions.

There is actually a Junior Minister who is responsible for insurance. His name is Michael D'Arcy and he is FG. He is in government.

It took a member of a non governmental party at an Oireachtas Commitee to expose the most simplest of mathematical equations, that the insurance industry's claims about Fraud did not add up. The video has gone viral, so NOW the media will give it the attention it deserves. It shouldn't take opposition TD's or investigative journalists to get a government Minister with specific responsibilties to do their job.

I am no SF supporter but it was also a Sinn F Private Members' Bill that proposed would force insurers to disclose more information when premiums rise, and that was 4 months ago.

The lack of government action has resulting in the EU having to intervene and are separately investigating the insurance industry under anti trust law.

Finally I gather the man's name is Pearse as in Padraig Pearse. Not Pierce as in Pierce Brosnan.

Would this be the same Michael D'Arcy that thinks it's the best of people who are making unwarranted claims?

Some people are saying that SF are the problem, get an effin grip.

Compensation is seen as “easy money” that tempts even the “best of people” into making unwarranted claims, the minister responsible for reforming the sector admits.

Michael D’Arcy said there are now “dozens and dozens of exaggerated claims” for every fraudulent one because people see an opportunity to cash in.

is_that_so

RustyNut wrote: »

Would this be the same Michael D'Arcy that thinks it's the best of people who are making unwarranted claims?

Some people are saying that SF are the problem, get an effin grip.

The real problem is the awards and the associated legal costs. That does give insurance companies a (valid?) reason to push up premia.

Jupiter Mulligan

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.

Hi Pearse - being stupid again I see!

The Insurance Companies would also need to provide the investigating authorities with whatever evidence they have on their files to support their allegations.

Wander into a Garda Station and report (allege) that someone is guilty of fraud without producing a scrap of evidence and you'll be treated like the idiot you are.

Atoms for Peace

Why the **** isn't Pierse leader of SF?

Jupiter Mulligan

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

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.

Entirely your call, I couldn't give a monkey's. But I reserve to right to highlight any further examples of gullible, crass stupidity that I may encounter - and I doubt that I'll have to wait for too long.

El_Duderino 09

Great to see good parliamentary work. This kind of thing is happening all the time in committee sessions. Most of the topics aren't as interesting as insurance fraud or John Delany. But this kind of work is always going on.

It's great to see this kind of work getting such good publicity.

El_Duderino 09

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Why the **** isn't Pierse leader of SF?

Being an effective committee member is different to leading a party. I would let SF structure itself whatever way it likes. PD seems to be a good man to have on the committee.

STB.

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

The Insurance Companies would also need to provide the investigating authorities with whatever evidence they have on their files to support their allegations.

Wander into a Grada Station and allege that someone is guilty of fraud without producing a scrap of evidence and you'll be treated like the idiot you are.

It is the insurance industry that have bandied about that 1 in 5 of insurance claims are fraudulent, but they only reported in many cases a percentage of less than 1% to AGS. This only means one thing. That they have been highly exaggerating these figures to justify premium increases. They have the market by the bollox and if your not in the cosy cartel, well.


The Garda (Garda National Economic Crime Bureau) are responsible for investigating fraud. Insurance Minister Michael Darcy and the Justice Minister, Charlie Flanagan have both ignored the report of the Personal Injuries Commission, in which Mr Justice Kearns called for the establishment of a specialised Garda fraud investigation unit. And here we are.

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Being an effective committee member is different to leading a party. I would let SF structure itself whatever way it likes. PD seems to be a good man to have on the committee.

He'll worry people like a dog, but tends to look like he has only one speed - anger.

lawred2

So what is the end result of this? A bit of a scolding but ultimately let's just carry on as we were?

Where's the corporate enforcement?

is_that_so

lawred2 wrote: »

So what is the end result of this? A bit of a scolding but ultimately let's just carry on as we were?

Where's the corporate enforcement?

Yeah that's it. Low level politics someone called this kind of thing; feeds the need for people to see politics as gladiatorial. Corporate regulations don't change from a grilling by a member of a Dail committee.

El_Duderino 09

is_that_so wrote: »

He'll worry people like a dog, but tends to look like he has only one speed - anger.

I can't claim to know much about PD but his performance in that clip was very good. Excellent parliamentary committee work.

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can't claim to know much about PD but his performance in that clip was very good. Excellent parliamentary committee work.

People would see that as his forte over the Mr Angry Dail stuff. Questioning is all fine, it's what comes out of the committee that matters.

El_Duderino 09

lawred2 wrote: »

So what is the end result of this? A bit of a scolding but ultimately let's just carry on as we were?

Where's the corporate enforcement?

It depends. Not much happens from any single parliamentary committee session. The witnesses will be asked to provide written evidence to back up their claims and the committee will probably write a report with recommendations for the industry to implement within an agreed timeframe.

Then they will be asked to return to evidence the changes they have made. If the government decides to pursue the issue, it will have more weight and would have greater impact on business practices.

El_Duderino 09

is_that_so wrote: »

People would see that as his forte over the Mr Angry Dail stuff. Questioning is all fine, it's what comes out of the committee that matters.

Completely agree that what comes out of the committee matters. And how th e government chooses to pursue it(or not) will make all the difference.

I'm struggling to see anything except good robust questioning by PD.

is_that_so

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Completely agree that what comes out of the committee matters. And how th e government chooses to pursue it(or not) will make all the difference.

I'm struggling to see anything except good robust questioning by PD.

It's the context of insurance premiums. If he'd been asking energy companies robust questions about what they planned to do on renewables nobody would have noticed.