Reform of the Insurance Industry in Ireland

Eric Cartman

cnocbui wrote: »

Insurance shouldn't just be for the rich, either. The principle of the greater good has to prevail.

+1


the reality of it is , we need to stop people chancing their arm for payouts on minor injuries ... or ones that can't be proven.

unprovable back and neck injuries should be capped at a 1 time 5 grand payout and anyone with more than 1 personal injury claim should have to bear all expense to prove everything possible in their claim.

El Gato De Negocios

BattleCorp wrote: »

Will PIAB use these guidelines or are they only for judges?

I would have thought they would apply across the board tbh. Little point in just having them for cases before the courts as people will just go to PIAB instead though even that would be a win as the average PIAB case costs €700 in legal fees, the average litigated case costs €14,000 in legal fees.

The benefits to the claimant?

On average around €500 more compensation for litigation.

Eric Cartman

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

I would have thought they would apply across the board tbh. Little point in just having them for cases before the courts as people will just go to PIAB instead though even that would be a win as the average PIAB case costs €700 in legal fees, the average litigated case costs €14,000 in legal fees.

The benefits to the claimant?

On average around €500 more compensation for litigation.

the issue is for those claimants who's time is worth nothing.... 500 euro is a lot to be paid when you've little else to do.

El Gato De Negocios

BattleCorp wrote: »

I wonder will we see solicitors and barristers pushing (exaggerating) the special damages aspect of claims seeing as these guidelines appear to box off the general damages end of things?

They do anyway tbh.

The vast majority of minor impact claims I see have PTSD like symptoms attached, nervous driver / passenger, gets scared in heavy traffic, trouble sleeping, Nightmares and flashbacks etc.

The psychological trauma of a 10 KMPH crash is apparently much worse than one would have suspected.

McCrack

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

They do anyway tbh.

The vast majority of minor impact claims I see have PTSD like symptoms attached, nervous driver / passenger, gets scared in heavy traffic, trouble sleeping, Nightmares and flashbacks etc.

The psychological trauma of a 10 KMPH crash is apparently much worse than one would have suspected.

Those symptoms are not special damages

Special damages are out of pocket expenses a plaintiff incurrs and need to be vouched

Harry Palmr

Is there scope for a professional court run snooping service? Assign someone to tail anyone who seeks damages for alleged soft tissue injuries and see how they measure up when getting on with life.

jmreire

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Is there scope for a professional court run snooping service? Assign someone to tail anyone who seeks damages for alleged soft tissue injuries and see how they measure up when getting on with life.

Not sure about a court appointed "snooping Service ", but I do know that insurance investigator's track claimant's, and it has often meant ( one that I know of anyway) a claim being dropped literally on the court house steps, or drastically reduced by the judge. For the insurance companys, I'd say that it is standard practice, for claims over a certain value anyway.

BattleCorp

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

I would have thought they would apply across the board tbh. Little point in just having them for cases before the courts as people will just go to PIAB instead though even that would be a win as the average PIAB case costs €700 in legal fees, the average litigated case costs €14,000 in legal fees.

The benefits to the claimant?

On average around €500 more compensation for litigation.

I deal with about 20 PIAB claims per year, unfortunately. I think in four years I've only had one that wasn't completed by a solicitor. I've seen a few solicitor bills too for applying to PIAB and none of them were less than €1500. That's good money for filling in a form and making an appointment to see a specialist/consultant.

My problem with PIAB is that it doesn't look at liability, and especially contributory negligence. It assumes that the employer/business is 100% guilty and unfortunately it's very often cheaper for me to agree ridiculous PIAB settlements where we would stand a good chance of winning in court but it would cost too much to defend.

By the way, €14k sounds cheap for defending a case.

BattleCorp

cnocbui wrote: »

Insurance shouldn't just be for the rich, either. The principle of the greater good has to prevail.

My point was about the suggestion that €100k should be paid down as a deposit before someone takes a claim.

That suggestion means that even if someone was badly injured through no fault of their own, they couldn't take a claim unless they had €100k in their ar5e pocket. That wouldn't be right.

Nermal

BattleCorp wrote: »

My point was about the suggestion that €100k should be paid down as a deposit before someone takes a claim.

That suggestion means that even if someone was badly injured through no fault of their own, they couldn't take a claim unless they had €100k in their ar5e pocket. That wouldn't be right.

Why? Borrow it.

Skin in the game.

Why should you be able to roll the dice in court, when if you lose there are no consequences for you? If your claim is strong, why won't you risk €100K?

Voluntary guidelines are not enough. They must be mandatory, and the ludicrously low threshold of negligence we have cornered ourselves into needs to be altered. And if judges refuse to go along with it, get rid of them.

Anyway, here's today's casserole of greedy nonsense from the four goldmines:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/girl-left-scarred-after-falling-into-brambles-at-school-awarded-90-000-1.4504267

Cluedo Monopoly

I was listening to the Pat Kenny radio show today. Some spokesman said that the judiciary had reduced max compensation claims for minor injuries by 50% but that they needed to do it by 80% to bring us in line with the UK. And then he said that the UK is also an outlier in Europe and that Europe has even lower compensation rates. Crazy stuff. It is impacting our economy and will do so when businesses try to reopen.
Get the finger out FFG.

BattleCorp

Nermal wrote: »

Why? Borrow it.

Skin in the game.

Why should you be able to roll the dice in court, when if you lose there are no consequences for you? If your claim is strong, why won't you risk €100K?

If you have no job, or maybe are on minimum wage, or plain out are struggling to make ends meet, who will loan you €100k?

While it would make my job much easier to have such a system in place, it wouldn't be a fair system whereby only the rich can have access to the courts.

Voluntary guidelines are not enough. They must be mandatory, and the ludicrously low threshold of negligence we have cornered ourselves into needs to be altered. And if judges refuse to go along with it, get rid of them.

I agree with you somewhat there but occasionally there might come a case where the guidelines don't fit the circumstances of the injury/case.

McCrack

BattleCorp wrote: »

I deal with about 20 PIAB claims per year, unfortunately. I think in four years I've only had one that wasn't completed by a solicitor. I've seen a few solicitor bills too for applying to PIAB and none of them were less than €1500. That's good money for filling in a form and making an appointment to see a specialist/consultant.

My problem with PIAB is that it doesn't look at liability, and especially contributory negligence. It assumes that the employer/business is 100% guilty and unfortunately it's very often cheaper for me to agree ridiculous PIAB settlements where we would stand a good chance of winning in court but it would cost too much to defend.

By the way, €14k sounds cheap for defending a case.

Youre part of the so called problem then agreeing to the assessments rather than defending them. If there is no liability in your view then you should not be agreeing and paying the assessments. Costs follow the event remember and even if you feel you can't recoup from a plaintiff it's still less then a 15k or 20k assessment

Curry Chips

What utterly ill informed nonsense. If you issue proceedings and are unsuccessful costs will be awarded against you.

As for the article you linked regarding the settlement for the injured girl, that figure was offered by the insurance company based on medical reports and the girls long term prognosis. The lawyers merely put the settlement offer before the court.

BattleCorp

McCrack wrote: »

Youre part of the so called problem then agreeing to the assessments rather than defending them. If there is no liability in your view then you should not be agreeing and paying the assessments. Costs follow the event remember and even if you feel you can't recoup from a plaintiff it's still less then a 15k or 20k assessment

Sorry, but the reality on the ground is very different from what you've just posted.

The aim of business is to make money and settling claims is often the cheapest option. Why fight a case and potentially lose €45k when you can settle it for €20k.

And liability is rarely black and white either so even if you think you have your ducks in a row, there's no guarantee that you will win in court and losing in court is usually way more expensive than agreeing a settlement.

As for costs following the event, what happens when you have spent €100k defending a 5 day High Court case and you win.........but the plaintiff lives at home with Mammy and Daddy and only has the dole as their income? You've no chance of getting any of that €100k. You may just suck it up. In that instance it has cost you €100k to win in court with no chance of getting any of it back.

Nermal

BattleCorp wrote: »

If you have no job, or maybe are on minimum wage, or plain out are struggling to make ends meet, who will loan you €100k?

Not my problem.

Curry Chips wrote: »

What utterly ill informed nonsense. If you issue proceedings and are unsuccessful costs will be awarded against you.

And if you're not a mark for costs, nothing will happen to you. Heads you win, tails the insurers lose. Not acceptable.

Curry Chips wrote: »

As for the article you linked regarding the settlement for the injured girl, that figure was offered by the insurance company based on medical reports and the girls long term prognosis.

They didn't want to roll the dice by allowing one of our clownish judges to pull a figure from his backside.

I find it hard to believe that it's not totally obvious to everyone that if you fall into a thornbush, it should be your own damned fault. Pathetic!

McCrack

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry, but the reality on the ground is very different from what you've just posted.

The aim of business is to make money and settling claims is often the cheapest option. Why fight a case and potentially lose €45k when you can settle it for €20k.

And liability is rarely black and white either so even if you think you have your ducks in a row, there's no guarantee that you will win in court and losing in court is usually way more expensive than agreeing a settlement.

As for costs following the event, what happens when you have spent €100k defending a 5 day High Court case and you win.........but the plaintiff lives at home with Mammy and Daddy and only has the dole as their income? You've no chance of getting any of that €100k. You may just suck it up. In that instance it has cost you €100k to win in court with no chance of getting any of it back.

Well you cant have your cake and eat - either you have liability or you don't - you cant turn around and say were not at fault lads but lets accept the PIAB assessment anyway. The vast majority of claims are pretty clear on liability and that is the reason that around 90 percent are compromised between the parties at various stages either at PIAB or proceedings issued. Only about 10 percent in fact go to trial and a five day HC case would not amount anywhere near to 100k defence costs as you suggest.

El Gato De Negocios

https://www.newstalk.com/news/personal-injury-awards-greatest-white-collar-crime-in-the-country-supermacs-ceo-1161274

Interesting comments from Pat McDonagh. Afaik supermacs are heavily self insured so are very proactive in defending claims, he has no allegiance to insurers yet calls out the amounts being paid and the legal system as being the two biggest issues. Impossible to disagree with anything he said.

jmreire

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

https://www.newstalk.com/news/personal-injury-awards-greatest-white-collar-crime-in-the-country-supermacs-ceo-1161274

Interesting comments from Pat McDonagh. Afaik supermacs are heavily self insured so are very proactive in defending claims, he has no allegiance to insurers yet calls out the amounts being paid and the legal system as being the two biggest issues. Impossible to disagree with anything he said.

Now IF, ( and its a very big IF ) our elected representatives had even the slightes t interest ( Pearce Doherty excepted ) in helping their electorate , Laws would have been changed, and this insurance "business" would have been sorted long ago. But too many vested interests involved. They are fond of blaming the EU when it suits them,but very slow to carry out EU instructions if its against their interests.

CarProblem

But I don't think it's going to have any massive effect - it's a help, but it's not really where we want to be"

Interesting quote

I'd be interested in a poll to see what impact people think this will have on motor insurance considering

- damage claims not impacted
- catastrophic injury claims not impacted
- companies expenses not impacted (in fact if premiums reduce intermediaries may ask for a higher %)

So the reduction will not be what people expect - and that's assuming a company's rates are currently at their profitability target level. The last point is worth considering as many companies have already cut rates and/or deferred rate increases rolling the dice that cuts would come in and the rates being charged would reflect lower awards, not the level pre review

Nermal

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/schoolgirl-left-anxious-about-missing-santa-visit-after-car-accidentis-awarded-25000-40304325.html

Child with the unfortunate name of 'Missy Elliott' is a passenger in a car accident, suffers no injury, has a few sleepless nights worried that Santa won't turn up.

*spins wheel*

Here's €25K!

New judicial guidelines recently voted on (why bother voting when they're not mandatory?) specifically make provision for 'PTSD'.

Soft heads to replace soft necks.

God may close a door, but the Four Goldmines can always open another.

BattleCorp

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/schoolgirl-left-anxious-about-missing-santa-visit-after-car-accidentis-awarded-25000-40304325.html

Child with the unfortunate name of 'Missy Elliott' is a passenger in a car accident, suffers no injury, has a few sleepless nights worried that Santa won't turn up.

*spins wheel*

Here's €25K!

New judicial guidelines recently voted on (why bother voting when they're not mandatory?) specifically make provision for 'PTSD'.

Soft heads to replace soft necks.

God may close a door, but the Four Goldmines can always open another.

This was an out-of-court settlement so the judicial guidelines don't apply. The only reason it went into court was for the judge to approve the settlement, as they have to do in all settlements involving minors.

Eitherways, I don't think the new guidelines have been applied yet.

And there's confusion on whether they apply to all cases in the system or the cases that begin once the guidelines are in place.

Kivaro

Heard a snippet on the news today that our insurance is supposed to start going down in June based on the implementation of recent proposals.

BattleCorp

Kivaro wrote: »

Heard a snippet on the news today that our insurance is supposed to start going down in June based on the implementation of recent proposals.

Our claims management team reckon that insurance won't noticeably go down for a year or two. I think expecting changes by June is a bit fanciful.

jmreire

BattleCorp wrote: »

Our claims management team reckon that insurance won't noticeably go down for a year or two. I think expecting changes by June is a bit fanciful.

Is that because all current claims will be settled under the "old "system?

CarProblem

Companies have already reduced rates and/or put off planned increases in anticipation of this reform. There is a lot of skepticism in the industry around the impact

- a number of judges were vehemently against the PIG (unfortunate accroynm)
- there is still discretion left with judges
- UK frequency of claims are a lot higher but awards lower - will we see claims farming here as solicitors see their income streams cut off?

If there is a very large impact on prices (the impact will surprise a lot of people) it won't be seen until companies are sure the reform is actually lowering costs. However as I've posted before in relation to motor

- Companies have already reduced rates and/or put off planned increases in anticipation of this reform
- doesn't apply to damage claims
- doesn't apply to large catastrophic type cases
- won't impact companies expenses, intermediaries commissions etc

So even if the oft quoted 50% reduction in awards materialises prices won't drop by anywhere near that

BattleCorp

jmreire wrote: »

Is that because all current claims will be settled under the "old "system?

I believe so.

The Personal Injury Guidelines haven't been commenced yet. Section 99 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 has to be commenced first. This is expected to be done before 31st July. Once that happens, judges will have to refer to the PIG (unfortunate initials). Older cases will be settled under the old (and generous) system.

jmreire

BattleCorp wrote: »

I believe so.

The Personal Injury Guidelines haven't been commenced yet. Section 99 of the Judicial Council Act 2019 has to be commenced first. This is expected to be done before 31st July. Once that happens, judges will have to refer to the PIG (unfortunate initials). Older cases will be settled under the old (and generous) system.

So as the new guidelines become effective on 31st July , we should see a fall off in claims as an indication that the new system is working?

BattleCorp

jmreire wrote: »

So as the new guidelines become effective on 31st July , we should see a fall off in claims as an indication that the new system is working?

It's expected that they will become effective by then but that's not a given.

No, I don't think we will see a reduction for quite a while yet. The insurance industry aren't going to reduce their premiums because they don't know what their costs will be until they've seen the system in action for quite a while. Plus we have a long backlog of cases that will be assessed under the old guidelines.

jmreire

BattleCorp wrote: »

I didn't say the new guidelines become effective on 31st July, it's expected that they will become effective by then but that's not a given.

No, I don't think we will see a reduction for quite a while yet. The insurance industry aren't going to reduce their premiums because they don't know what their costs will be until they've seen the system in action for quite a while. Plus we have a long backlog of cases that will be assessed under the old guidelines.

Thers only one thing really that you can be sure of in this case BattleCorp, and that is the insurance companys and the other "interested partys" will fight it tooth and nail every chance they get, new book or old on.:cool: