National demonstration against the rising cost of insurance

Special Circumstances

Brian Scan wrote: »

Where did I suggest that?

Special Circumstances

I have a funny feeling we are being squeezed disproportionately for rises in public liability and other insurance.

If an 8% rise in claims, and a 14% rise in awards yields an average of 50% insurance increase, surely public liability has increased 200%, 300% recently? I have no doubt that it is a frightening cost and serious barrier to any business starting up, but I doubt it has sky rocketed the same way as car insurance.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I have a funny feeling we are being squeezed disproportionately for rises in public liability and other insurance.

If an 8% rise in claims, and a 14% rise in awards yields an average of 50% insurance increase, surely public liability has increased 200%, 300% recently? I have no doubt that it is a frightening cost and serious barrier to any business starting up, but I doubt it has sky rocketed the same way as car insurance.

You would be incorrect.

Motor claims is just one of the determining factors in the rising price of motor claims.

You are taking an all too simplistic view of things.

Retail risks such as SuperValu are claim hives for slips, trips and falls from the public as well as employers liability for lifting injuries.

Hotels and pubs are the same with average industry increases of up to 100%.

Aviva and Liberty both exited their leisure book completely over the last couple of years due to the toxic claims environment.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

You would be incorrect.

A lot of the maths is anecdotal but here we go.

8% increase in average motor claims payouts = anecdotal average premium increase of 50%

27% rise in public liability payouts =anecdotal up to 100% premium increase.

Now the opaque nature of the industry prevents conclusive proof, but 3x increase in payout = 2x increase in premium.

That may not be disproportionate in insurance maths, but in real world maths it is.

Special Circumstances

Baaaaad statistics and logic:

https://www.123.ie/blog/reasons-for-car-insurance-premium-increase

"2. Fatalities and injuries are on the rise

Insurers are losing money on motor policies due to higher levels of road fatalities, more collision and injury claims. Statistics on 2014 published by the Road Safety Authority show a 21% rise in the number of road traffic fatalities from 2012 to 2014. Carjacking and hijacking increased by 75% and vehicle theft increased by 5% for quarter one of 2015 compared to the same period of 2014."

Here we have a load of mumbo jumbo and pseudo statistical explaining.
Have a look at your policy for payout figures - deaths aren't all that expensive.

Carjacking increased by a whopping 75% OMG won't somebody think of the premia!
4 carjackings became 7 last year did it? Better cancel the foie gras lads or increase premia by 50% across the board.

Both of these things are statistically insignificant in the world but are being thrown out there because they sound dangerous and they are big numbers.

I really really really hope the same guys who came up with this rubbish statistics abuse aren't the same guys deciding whether a 2.0 tdi family car is a high performance weapon or not. Oh... wait...

Special Circumstances

More gibberish from the same source:

"4. Legal costs

The PIAB (Personal Injuries Assessment Board) was introduced in 2003 to reduce the legal costs involved in handling claims and basically to reduce the need for lawyers in insurance cases. In essence, the plan was good as it introduced fairness but it didn’t happen.

The independent report that “90pc of those making a personal injuries claim before the Injuries Board are legally represented…"

Legal costs at the PIAB are not awarded in addition to the compensation. It is entirely the claimants choice to have a knowledgeable professional help them through a process that the insurer will make as unpleasant as possible. They pay for it FROM whatever they get.

There is some correct information in that link, but it is mostly shrouded in misrepresented rubbish that sounds better (worse?) than the actual facts

CorkMan_

If we could tackle the compo culture that has taken over this country I'm sure Insurance will fall. It sickens me what people will sue for now. Also Insurance companies shouldn't pay out claims so easily too.

Henry Ford III

For me it's the legal system that's mainly at fault here.

Why not protest outside some ambulance chasers office?

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Baaaaad statistics and logic:

https://www.123.ie/blog/reasons-for-car-insurance-premium-increase

"2. Fatalities and injuries are on the rise

Insurers are losing money on motor policies due to higher levels of road fatalities, more collision and injury claims. Statistics on 2014 published by the Road Safety Authority show a 21% rise in the number of road traffic fatalities from 2012 to 2014. Carjacking and hijacking increased by 75% and vehicle theft increased by 5% for quarter one of 2015 compared to the same period of 2014."

Here we have a load of mumbo jumbo and pseudo statistical explaining.
Have a look at your policy for payout figures - deaths aren't all that expensive.

Carjacking increased by a whopping 75% OMG won't somebody think of the premia!
4 carjackings became 7 last year did it? Better cancel the foie gras lads or increase premia by 50% across the board.

Both of these things are statistically insignificant in the world but are being thrown out there because they sound dangerous and they are big numbers.

I really really really hope the same guys who came up with this rubbish statistics abuse aren't the same guys deciding whether a 2.0 tdi family car is a high performance weapon or not. Oh... wait...

What are you talking about?

Deaths aren't all that expensive.

Pray tell, how much would you say a road fatality costs an insurer?

I presume you are talking about the capital benefit that gets paid by some companies in the event the family of the POLICY HOLDER is killed while driving THEIR own car?

Usually around €25k.

That's not that much in the grand scheme of things.

What about the tragedy in Donegal that resulted in the deaths of 9 or 10 because of one drivers actions, you reckon there was only €25k paid out for each of those deaths?

Or the case in Kildare where three or four young women were killed as passengers.

€25k for each of them too I suppose?

Where are you getting the figures for car jackings and theft, percentage increases are being cited by companies, have you somehow managed to get access to the numbers?

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Pray tell, how much would you say a road fatality costs an insurer?

I love it when you talk snooty to me.

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Where are you getting the figures for car jackings and theft, percentage increases are being cited by companies, have you somehow managed to get access to the numbers?

It's called a hyperlink. It's not as scary as it sounds.

Special Circumstances

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Thankfully some are, otherwise I'd be out of a job :pac:

Hmmmm, sounds like it's reckless to be travelling the world wide web without insurance!

Special Circumstances

Speaking of hyperlinks Saul, if you could conjure up any that describe the payouts for fatalities I'd be much obliged. As it is, yeah, us poor old 15year old car driving thickos from the island don't have much sense of scale only to relate the compensation figures we see in our policies.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Speaking of hyperlinks Saul, if you could conjure up any that describe the payouts for fatalities I'd be much obliged. As it is, yeah, us poor old 15year old car driving thickos from the island don't have much sense of scale only to relate the compensation figures we see in our policies.

Ya know what, I'm not going to bother with you anymore because unlike a lot of people in here you cannot seem to get your head around the most basic of things. I have on many occasions given many examples of the levels of payments that being made across various types claims but you seemingly ignore them all as they don't seem to satisfy you.

You pepper your responses with illinformed commentary and lame jokes about fois gras and cartels.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true.

So go ahead and wring your hands, I will not be addressing you nor responding to any of your efforts going forward.

Special Circumstances

I'll find the payouts for fatalities if I look through your posts so? Or are ya spoofing? I have a good idea which tbh.



I suppose only the person that wrote up those reasons for the insurance increases on the page I linked to is allowed "ill informed commentary" and a bit of hyberbole? Oooooh that's me told.

I can't see any source that contradicts anything I've said. I can see lots of sources that suggest that what insurers want us to believe is not really reality.

Are you upset about the statistics I pulled out? Maybe you should get onto Kevin Thompson and that traitor in 123 who wrote the other article. Undermining on the internet, how dare they!

dr.fuzzenstein

I'm beginning to suspect what could be so "special" about your circumstances...

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm beginning to suspect what could be so "special" about your circumstances...

Oh doc, making it personal? Rather than pulling me up on faults in my arguments. Pray tell, how have I discomforted you?
I can see you are in favour of the "get in line, accept and obey" world the insurers want us to live in. I prefer to question BS statistical abuse, and denials of physiology and physics.

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Oh doc, making it personal? Rather than pulling me up on faults in my arguments. Pray tell, how have I discomforted you?
I can see you are in favour of the "get in line, accept and obey" world the insurers want us to live in. I prefer to question BS statistical abuse, and denials of physiology and physics.

Sorry, couldn't resist. The poster you have been arguing with has been consistently sensible and he can back up his assertions with stats and personal experience.
I'm not saying lie down and take it, but the real issue is a 17th century legal system, insane and senile circuit court judges and a political establishment that knows bloody well what's going on, but due to the usual nepotism and cronyism found in this deeply rotten and inbred country, will not do anything, because their family members are too busy creaming it.
As for the awards, every sum in the book of quantum could have a zero lobbed off at the end and it would still be adequate. The amounts paid out are crazy, insane, loola, batsh*t, there simply is no argument against that.

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Sorry, couldn't resist. The poster you have been arguing with has been consistently sensible and he can back up his assertions with stats and personal experience.
I'm not saying lie down and take it, but the real issue is a 17th century legal system, insane and senile circuit court judges and a political establishment that knows bloody well what's going on, but due to the usual nepotism and cronyism found in this deeply rotten and inbred country, will not do anything, because their family members are too busy creaming it.
As for the awards, every sum in the book of quantum could have a zero lobbed off at the end and it would still be adequate. The amounts paid out are crazy, insane, loola, batsh*t, there simply is no argument against that.

The second half of your argument is completely separate from the first. I agree with the second.


But there is something very very fishy about their stats. The sensible poster didn't seem to like me bringing up the straight from the horse mouth facts. Laughable as their presentation was in the case of the 123 link. Simple measures of transparency in the UK market become harbingers of insurance market doom in Ireland wooooooh. Throws the toys outta the pram when he can't source any links to show whether deaths are more/less expensive than serious injury claims.

If you think that me arguing against that sort of "shut up and pay up cretins" type attitude deserves a snide swipe at people with special needs or whatever you were aiming for... I don't think that reflects very well on you at all really.

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

The second half of your argument is completely separate from the first. I agree with the second.


But there is something very very fishy about their stats. The sensible poster didn't seem to like me bringing up the straight from the horse mouth facts. Laughable as their presentation was in the case of the 123 link. Simple measures of transparency in the UK market become harbingers of insurance market doom in Ireland wooooooh. Throws the toys outta the pram when he can't source any links to show whether deaths are more/less expensive than serious injury claims.

If you think that me arguing against that sort of "shut up and pay up cretins" type attitude deserves a snide swipe at people with special needs or whatever you were aiming for... I don't think that reflects very well on you at all really.

I don't think deaths on the road are what's putting up premiums, it's more along the line of "ouch my neck", followed by "here, have €20k".
Followed by 4-5 people who "genuinely" don't know each other and are having an "unfortunate" accident with yet another "complete stranger". With cops saying "yeah, yeah, I'll type it up on my invisible typewriter" and drunk judges throwing money around like confetti. No politician will ever do anything, because his cousin the solicitor is simply making too much money and the Christmas dinner would just be too awkward if he pissed in his soup.
It's a corrupt, inbred mess and I don't ever see it being sorted out. Meanwhile the average premium will be heading for a grand soon enough...
I'm already planning my exit, I hope I time it right before the next crash...

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I don't think deaths on the road are what's putting up premiums, it's more along the line of "ouch my neck", followed by "here, have €20k".
Followed by 4-5 people who "genuinely" don't know each other and are having an "unfortunate" accident with yet another "complete stranger". With cops saying "yeah, yeah, I'll type it up on my invisible typewriter" and drunk judges throwing money around like confetti. No politician will ever do anything, because his cousin the solicitor is simply making too much money and the Christmas dinner would just be too awkward if he pissed in his soup.
It's a corrupt, inbred mess and I don't ever see it being sorted out. Meanwhile the average premium will be heading for a grand soon enough...
I'm already planning my exit, I hope I time it right before the next crash...

So I was special for telling sensible cat that the cost of 20% increase in fatalities isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things?

Special for suggesting the way 123 were presenting stats is fishy?

Special for suggesting if they are the best reasons they can put forward for the increase, and they have to fluff them up with fishy statistical messing that it seems the whole thing stinks??

Does that mean we are special together doc? Please say that it does OMG.

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So I was special for telling sensible cat that the cost of 20% increase in fatalities isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things?

Special for suggesting the way 123 were presenting stats is fishy?

Special for suggesting if they are the best reasons they can put forward for the increase, and they have to fluff them up with fishy statistical messing that it seems the whole thing stinks??

Does that mean we are special together doc? Please say that it does OMG.

Groan, I'll never hear the end of that.

Cookie_Monster

The system here in NZ is pretty good. Centrally controlled agency responsible for all accident costs. Insurance include in you Rego (motor tax for want of a better comparison) and insurance outside of this is not mandatory.
Should be copied in Ireland IMO, a single agency setting payouts and fighting against crazy claims would be far more effective.

jacksie66 wrote: »

My brother went home a few weeks ago after being in New Zealand for 5 years. He was quoted 6000 on a ****ty alfa. Insane at home. I drive a 2.0 turbo subaru legacy here in NZ. Only 600 bucks fully comp.. I'd get shafted if I went home. Don't get me started on road tax..

sounds like you're getting shafted here too...

brooke 2

Diabhalta wrote: »

Blocking m50 is a bit too much I know, just an extreme measure.

But blocking their offices is a great idea.

I think ins. companies don't really pay that much on compensations so they have to raise the premiums the way they do. Didn't they admit (somewhere) that they want more profits and it's not about more claims?

I used to have a 1.0 Micra and paid anually 400 euro, renewal in January was 650 euro. I asked him in the office why is it going up by +-60% and he couldn't give me an answer. What a scam.

I was told that it was due to the fact they have to cover the losses incurred when Setanta went bust.

bazz26

Losses from Quinn and PMP all incur a levy on your premium. Court ruling made the insurance industry absorb the Setanta fiasco which in turn is passed onto the consumer.

brooke 2

Del2005 wrote: »

People go to the PIAB, reject the award and go to court where costs are covered. You'd want to be an idiot to accept the PIAB offer when the courts award huge sums.

Just an anecdote - a friend of mine suffered
whiplash a few years ago. She was being awarded a certain amount, with which she was quite happy, only for her solicitor to advise her to hold out for more. She was stunned at the amount she eventually received. Isn't it time the law re insurance claims was revised?

brooke 2

Henry Ford III wrote: »

For me it's the legal system that's mainly at fault here.

Why not protest outside some ambulance chasers office?

Absolutely!!

Willfarman

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I don't think deaths on the road are what's putting up premiums, it's more along the line of "ouch my neck", followed by "here, have €20k".
Followed by 4-5 people who "genuinely" don't know each other and are having an "unfortunate" accident with yet another "complete stranger". With cops saying "yeah, yeah, I'll type it up on my invisible typewriter" and drunk judges throwing money around like confetti. No politician will ever do anything, because his cousin the solicitor is simply making too much money and the Christmas dinner would just be too awkward if he pissed in his soup.
It's a corrupt, inbred mess and I don't ever see it being sorted out. Meanwhile the average premium will be heading for a grand soon enough...
I'm already planning my exit, I hope I time it right before the next crash...

Nail on the head. This is the crux of the issue.
Public liability insurance rates are crippling private businesses.. The entire Irish legal profession is now a rotten greed ridden cesspit of bile. A self regulating entity..
The law society. And they are the tail wagging the dog now.
Note. These view are my own and are not stated facts endorsed by boards.ie.

The Sidewards Man

As long as a bruise is worth in excess of ten grand we have a problem.

Willfarman

The Sidewards Man wrote: »

As long as a bruise is worth in excess of ten grand we have a problem.

Oh definitely. If we could hold a bruise at 10 grand, and say 5 grand for a stitch, be graaaand!

So the idea is to get a load of cars in a row, going into the city?

Seems like a decent idea. Is there a bit of a 'wink wink, nudge, nudge' to it? Is the fella at the front gonna hit the brakes and we all accidentally rear end each other, each putting in claim after claim


and if the prices don't down, we threaten FBD and co. that we'll do it all again next year... My back is killing me already..




(just joking of course - if im free on the day in question i'd happily get involved).