Compensation Culture to a new level

please helpThank YOU

The Insurance Companies Ireland should we leave them keep all the money the take in Insurance Policy ?. example of assets of Insurance Companies Ireland Allianz 1.7 Billion Euros assets, Axa Insurance 1.6 Billion Euros assets, Zurich Insurance 2.6 Billion assets, FBD Insurance 1.3 Billion euros in assets, . We are being hoodwinked by Insurance Companies of Ireland We are talking about the Little people who get a claim for say 20000 euros and the insurance Companies and Banks and making Billions of Insurance Policy Holder.

BailMeOut

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The Insurance Companies Ireland should we leave them keep all the money the take in Insurance Policy ?. example of assets of Insurance Companies Ireland Allianz 1.7 Billion Euros assets, Axa Insurance 1.6 Billion Euros assets, Zurich Insurance 2.6 Billion assets, FBD Insurance 1.3 Billion euros in assets, . We are being hoodwinked by Insurance Companies of Ireland We are talking about the Little people who get a claim for say 20000 euros and the insurance Companies and Banks and making Billions of Insurance Policy Holder.

100% agree here and they love stories like this as it suits them. Bogus claims are a lot less to do with skyrocketing insurance costs that they'd like us to believe.

Sue Pa Key Pa

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The Insurance Companies Ireland should we leave them keep all the money the take in Insurance Policy ?. example of assets of Insurance Companies Ireland Allianz 1.7 Billion Euros assets, Axa Insurance 1.6 Billion Euros assets, Zurich Insurance 2.6 Billion assets, FBD Insurance 1.3 Billion euros in assets, . We are being hoodwinked by Insurance Companies of Ireland We are talking about the Little people who get a claim for say 20000 euros and the insurance Companies and Banks and making Billions of Insurance Policy Holder.

Jeez, €7.2 Billion alone there and the odd €20k paid out. I knew they were thieves, but never knew it was that bad

Sue Pa Key Pa

BTW

FBD

31st Dec 16 Source: CRO
€1.3 billion assets
€11.4 million profit
750 employees


31st Dec 15 Source: CRO
€1.3 billion assets
-€85.5 million profit
750 employees

please helpThank YOU

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Jeez, €7.2 Billion alone there and the odd €20k paid out. I knew they were thieves, but never knew it was that bad

The get the Good People of Ireland talk about the little people who got a claim for 20000 euros. Its called Divide and Conquer. when the make billions in profit from people who pay Insurance .

Sue Pa Key Pa

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The get the Good People of Ireland talk about the little people who got a claim for 20000 euros. Its called Divide and Conquer. when the make billions in profit from people who pay Insurance .

I think my sarcasm was lost in translation. Billions in assets (client premiums) does not necessarily mean profits. See my example on FBD above

I have to admit though, billions is a word that gets my juices flowing. Mmmmm!

Samuel T. Cogley

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I think my sarcasm was lost in translation. Billions in assets (client premiums) does not necessarily mean profits. See my example on FBD above

I have to admit though, billions is a word that gets my juices flowing. Mmmmm!

Assets are a good way of diverting profit...

xzanti

166man wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-banged-her-knee-against-table-leg-at-restaurant-awarded-20k-35579644.html

When is there going to be something sensible done about this? €20k for knocking your knee off a dinner table.. Most clear case of claims harvesting by the solicitors.

Sickening to read it.

She looks delighted with herself.

please helpThank YOU

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Assets are a good way of diverting profit...

1,000,000,000 Billion per cent Correct. We are being Hoodwinked.

Cupcake_Crisis

Tbf, if you're too stupid to know that tables have legs you probably shouldn't be leaving the house at all.

Tea-a-Maria

BPKS wrote: »

I know but your looking at an average of 1/4 of the award being legal fees. You agree?

Ah here, move the goal posts much? There's a massive difference in saying fees come out of an award to a judge arbitrarily making massive awards because the barrister is his golf buddy. :rolleyes:

fullstop

Another humdinger today. €200k for an accident in her boyfriends house where he fell, broke a glass panel and the glass went in her eye. I mean WTF

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-sued-partners-parents-over-lost-eye-is-awarded-200k-in-damages-35834047.html

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

Another humdinger today. €200k for an accident in her boyfriends house where he fell, broke a glass panel and the glass went in her eye. I mean WTF

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-sued-partners-parents-over-lost-eye-is-awarded-200k-in-damages-35834047.html

Did you over look the part where she lost her eye?

Lady is a tramp

fullstop wrote: »

Another humdinger today. €200k for an accident in her boyfriends house where he fell, broke a glass panel and the glass went in her eye. I mean WTF

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-who-sued-partners-parents-over-lost-eye-is-awarded-200k-in-damages-35834047.html

Did you read the article? The partner's father replaced the glass in the doors himself, and made an arse of it.

"In this case, evidence was given that no reasonably competent tradesman, if asked to replace the glass in the door in 2000 /2001, would have used anything other than safety glass, she said.

Regrettably, that was a standard not met met by Mr Cogan Snr when he undertook to repair the door himself, the Judge said."

fullstop

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you over look the part where she lost her eye?

So she comes into someone's house, and that someone falls and in a freak accident she loses an eye and he's at fault to the tune of 200k? Right, sound.

fullstop

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

Did you read the article? The partner's father replaced the glass in the doors himself, and made an arse of it.

"In this case, evidence was given that no reasonably competent tradesman, if asked to replace the glass in the door in 2000 /2001, would have used anything other than safety glass, she said.

Regrettably, that was a standard not met met by Mr Cogan Snr when he undertook to repair the door himself, the Judge said."

Yes I did. It was a freak accident. She was a guest in the home, ludicrous judgement.

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

Yes I did. It was a freak accident. She was a guest in the home, ludicrous judgement.

The breaking may have been an accident, but she wasn't suing the boyfriend. She was suing the parents who had effectively installed what was considered by the court to be dangerous, and that was no accident. You'll see it all the time now in engineers reports if a house contains non shatterproof glass in internal doors etc.

As you rightly point out, she was a guest, an invitee, so they had a duty of care, that is beyond question.

MarcusP12

I'm the first to dust off the pitchfork for ridiculous compensation awards but this is not one of them in my view. She lost an eye so there is obviously long terms impact. The father, who was not competent to do so, replaced the glass with an inappropriate material and it was that inappropriate material that was a direct influence on the outcome of the accident.had the glass been replaced with shatter proof like it should, she wouldn't have lost her eye.pretty clear to me anyway....maybe the amount is high but there's no doubt she was entitled to a substatial amount....

Noodles81

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I'm the first to dust off the pitchfork for ridiculous compensation awards but this is not one of them in my view. She lost an eye so there is obviously long terms impact. The father, who was not competent to do so, replaced the glass with an inappropriate material and it was that inappropriate material that was a direct influence on the outcome of the accident.had the glass been replaced with shatter proof like it should, she wouldn't have lost her eye.pretty clear to me anyway....maybe the amount is high but there's no doubt she was entitled to a substatial amount....

I read the article yesterday and while I felt sorry for her losing an eye, it did concern me that she sued her in laws. The man replaced the glass in 2000/ 2001 and then a freak accident happens like this and he is liable for it seven years later? Nobody will want anyone visiting their homes at this rate, where does it end, the potential risk of an accident is always there. I just wouldn't sue or even think to do it...surely that relationship must have ended over this. Maybe there was bad blood over it, she has pursued it over 10 years. But it was just an unfortunate accident and no money will undo what has happened to her eye, so why bother except to gain financially from the terrible event.

MarcusP12

Noodles81 wrote: »

MarcusP12 wrote: »

I'm the first to dust off the pitchfork for ridiculous compensation awards but this is not one of them in my view. She lost an eye so there is obviously long terms impact. The father, who was not competent to do so, replaced the glass with an inappropriate material and it was that inappropriate material that was a direct influence on the outcome of the accident.had the glass been replaced with shatter proof like it should, she wouldn't have lost her eye.pretty clear to me anyway....maybe the amount is high but there's no doubt she was entitled to a substatial amount....

I read the article yesterday and while I felt sorry for her losing an eye, it did concern me that she sued her in laws. The man replaced the glass in 2000/ 2001 and then a freak accident happens like this and he is liable for it seven years later? Nobody will want anyone visiting their homes at this rate, where does it end, the potential risk of an accident is always there. I just wouldn't sue or even think to do it...surely that relationship must have ended over this. Maybe there was bad blood over it, she has pursued it over 10 years. But it was just an unfortunate accident and no money will undo what has happened to her eye, so why bother except to gain financially from the terrible event.

What you're talking about there is morality and $hit happens principal. I've gone down that route before on similar threads trying to get my head around the compo culture and the legal professions role in it and gotten a few legal lessons! Yeah it does seem strange that she would sue her partners family. Doesn't say much for her morally but legally she had a perfectly sound case. That it was her in laws involved, doesn't matter in a legal sense. For me her obvious mindset was not that this was a terrible unlucky thing to happen, it was obviously this was a terrible unlucky thing to happen and someone should pay. Why I say this is that I would doubt she knew how strong her case was in terms of the wrong glass being installed being key to the successful action. She obviously went to a solicitor explained the case and bingo bango, silver bullet was uncovered. I guess none of us know what we would do under the same circumstances. She did lose an eye after all and I don't think it refers to him as an ex partner so it doesn't seem to have affected that side of things. Maybe the parents felt guilty about it and graciously accepted her right to sue them? Not the worst example of crazy cases we've had.....hopefully not much damage was done to the relationships involved......

Lady is a tramp

Noodles81 wrote: »

I read the article yesterday and while I felt sorry for her losing an eye, it did concern me that she sued her in laws. The man replaced the glass in 2000/ 2001 and then a freak accident happens like this and he is liable for it seven years later? Nobody will want anyone visiting their homes at this rate, where does it end, the potential risk of an accident is always there. I just wouldn't sue or even think to do it...surely that relationship must have ended over this. Maybe there was bad blood over it, she has pursued it over 10 years. But it was just an unfortunate accident and no money will undo what has happened to her eye, so why bother except to gain financially from the terrible event.

It's not a freak accident though really. He took a shortcut, out of stingeyness or whatever, and if he hadn't then the girl's partner tripping would've been a non-event. No one would've been seriously hurt.

If it hadn't been this girl losing her eye, it could've easily been a grandchild severing an artery after putting an arm through it, or something equally serious. He was absolutely in the wrong.

jelutong

Can anyone quote the relevant building regulation covering the use of shatterproof glass in interior doors? My doors date back to the early '80s.

whisky_galore

Lady is a tramp wrote: »

It's not a freak accident though really. He took a shortcut, out of stingeyness or whatever, and if he hadn't then the girl's partner tripping would've been a non-event. No one would've been seriously hurt.

I had no idea small glass panes had to be shatterproof in domestic doors and doubt if the general population would either.

Loads of houses still have older doors with ordinary glass.

whisky_galore

Whichever. Semantics. But I still doubt that many people outside of the trades know this.

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

Yes I did. It was a freak accident. She was a guest in the home, ludicrous judgement.

The glass had been broken multiple times previously, yet he still didn't use shatterproof glass????

Yes it's an unfortunate accident and bizzare chain of events, but a guest in their house lost an eye. How this can be compared to someone bumping their leg off a table leg I don't know

Lady is a tramp

whisky_galore wrote: »

I had no idea small glass panes had to be shatterproof in domestic doors and doubt if the general population would either.

Loads of houses still have older doors with ordinary glass.

Yeah but the difference is that those doors probably met the safety standards in place at the time that they were fitted. I don't think anyone is expected to retrospectively fit doors with safety glass. But if this guy was going to decide to do a job like that rather than leave it to professionals, he was assuming he had the appropriate knowledge and expertise. He clearly didn't, as he didn't meet the current safety standards. If he'd employed someone to do it for him, and they'd put in ordinary glass, I imagine it would be them picking up the bill instead.

Incidentally I remember, way back in the day, myself and my siblings playing a game where we were running from one end of the hallway to another, slapping the door each side as we went. Until my brother (maybe five or six at the time) slapped the pane of glass on the porch door, running at speed, and it broke and his forearm was slashed open from wrist to elbow. The vein wasn't cut as far as I remember, it just needed a ****load of stitches. There was loads of blood. My parents then replaced all of the doors with glass panes with solid doors instead (I guess safety glass wasn't available at the time.)

Those with internal doors with ordinary glass really need to be aware of the dangers, not just with kids around, but with any sort of accident (as happened in this case.) Would've been a whole lot cheaper all around if he'd just taken the opportunity back in 2000 to fit ALL the internal doors with safety glass as per the standards in place then. Rather than his little DIY job that came back to haunt him!

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

Whichever. Semantics. But I still doubt that many people outside of the trades know this.

It's not semantics though. The glass had broken multiple times before. Wouldn't take a tradesman to see the danger

MarcusP12

An interested question for me would be as follows. If it was a case that the successful action was based on the replacement of ordinary glass by the father when he should have either got a trades man to do it or if he was doing it himself, he should have replaced it with shatter proof glass, then IF the glass had never required replacement down the years and the non shatter proof was just the standard at the time the door was installed first, would she have been able to successfully sue or would it have just been put down as a tragic accident? I.e. Is a private individual required to have all the latest safety measures in place to cover themselves for this kind of possibility? Seems a bit mad if they did...

Samuel T. Cogley

MarcusP12 wrote: »

An interested question for me would be as follows. If it was a case that the successful action was based on the replacement of ordinary glass by the father when he should have either got a trades man to do it or if he was doing it himself, he should have replaced it with shatter proof glass, then IF the glass had never required replacement down the years and the non shatter proof was just the standard at the time the door was installed first, would she have been able to successfully sue or would it have just been put down as a tragic accident? I.e. Is a private individual required to have all the latest safety measures in place to cover themselves for this kind of possibility? Seems a bit mad if they did...

Tort (in this case negligence) is a loss distribution mechanism. The €200K comes from all of us to compensate someone for the loss of an eye and the ramifications that has. This is obviously done through insurance, and I'm not having that tired old argument before anyone starts...

So bearing that in mind, you'd have to decide for yourself what a Judge would decide in any set of circumstances you envision. My personal rule of thumb is the insured party is always at a disadvantage to the uninsured party.

As for maintenance, replacements, regulations it's impossible to answer. Every case will turn on it's own facts.

kupus

Whats the point of getting out of bed and going to a days work when I can just fall down a staircase in some bar, slip on a chip,
hit my leg off the table, slip on a pavement, slip on a hiking trail, slip in some shop, drink some hot coffee
and spill it on myself, or maybe claim the coffee was too hot in the first place.

then just go get a doctors report, get a psych report, get a lawyer who then need to get more reports from engineers and architects and specialist medical reports.
Money money money.


and the worse thing of all..... is the people that defend it,