Who can claim on insurance?

Can someone who has to take time off work, after witnessing a traumatic crash claim their losses back, from insurance?

Liam McPoyle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can someone who has to take time off work, after witnessing a traumatic crash claim their losses back, from insurance?

You could try and claim off one of the people involved in the crash but you would be most likely be laughed at by every insurer and court in the country tbh.

There are chancers when it comes to claims then there are chancers.

This would fall into the latter category.

myshirt

It is called a Tort of Outrage, and yes you can. You need a very good legal team, and you need extremely deep pockets. You could be asked to put 200-500k of a lodgement into the court in case you lose so that everyone can get paid.

The likelihood that complainants will lose is high, but go to a solicitor to see if you have a case if you want. Might costs 4-6k to suss out if you've a case, they'll need a barristers opinion.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

It is called a Tort of Outrage, and yes you can. You need a very good legal team, and you need extremely deep pockets. You could be asked to put 200-500k of a lodgement into the court in case you lose so that everyone can get paid.

The likelihood that complainants will lose is high, but go to a solicitor to see if you have a case if you want. Might costs 4-6k to suss out if you've a case, they'll need a barristers opinion.

I was curious as I've recently seen the effects on someone who witnessed a fatal crash and its aftermath.
Just had me thinking that a lot of people must have considerable issues mentally after something so traumatic.

I love Sean nos

Deleted User wrote: »

I was curious as I've recently seen the effects on someone who witnessed a fatal crash and its aftermath.
Just had me thinking that a lot of people must have considerable issues mentally after something so traumatic.

Solicitor won't walk into court with just someone's word that they've been damaged by what they've witnessed. Solicitor will engage a psychologist to perform an evaluation. Now you have evidence of damage, which may be enough to encourage an insurance company to settle.

I love Sean nos

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Solicitor won't walk into court with just someone's word that they've been damaged by what they've witnessed. Solicitor will engage a psychologist to perform an evaluation. Now you have evidence of damage, which may be enough to encourage an insurance company to settle.

Just to confirm that I'm not looking for legal advice here.
I'm just curious what constitutes an injury in this regard, when you consider some of the crazy successful claims for a stubbed toe etc VS someone with lasting mental effects from seeing something horrific.

Kinda had me thinking that it's an example where we ignore mental injury/illness and only view injury as physical.

Was actually kinda surprised that it actually had a name, as above poster's "tort of outrage"

mikeybrennan

Is there any prescendent for this type of claim being successful

NUTLEY BOY

mikeybrennan wrote: »

Is there any prescendent for this type of claim being successful

There is a string of cases in English law over many years where this issue has flipped and flopped.

The cases were classified as "nervous shock cases".

In short, it is possible in the tort of negligence for a person who has been negligent and who has caused nervous shock to another - even a bystander - to be liable.

Much turns on the specific facts of the case and the medical evidence has to be very good as distinct from being theoretically plausible.

mikeybrennan

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

There is a string of cases in English law over many years where this issue has flipped and flopped.

The cases were classified as "nervous shock cases".

In short, it is possible in the tort of negligence for a person who has been negligent and who has caused nervous shock to another - even a bystander - to be liable.

Much turns on the specific facts of the case and the medical evidence has to be very good as distinct from being theoretically plausible.

I'd imagine it will cost a fair bit of money to successfully argue a case

NUTLEY BOY

mikeybrennan wrote: »

I'd imagine it will cost a fair bit of money to successfully argue a case

Not always.

Two areas of proof are required, namely fault and loss. Assuming that fault for inflicting the injury is proven you can focus on proof of injury and loss.

To succeed, the plaintiff must meet the civil standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities. This means that you must prove that a matter is at least 51% more likely than not. So, if the medical evidence is good enough to meet the requisite standard the plaintiff should win.

This must be distinguished from dubious cases where the claimant has very weak evidence but tries to build it up in such a way as to try and "create" a case. Those cases might involve spending money to dredge up enough expert opinions to look plausible. Judges have good noses for those cases.

myshirt

I tend to disagree Nutley. This is not an area you want to be sabre rattling on or tyre kicking in a hit and hope way with some vexatious and frivolous claims and ideas.

You'd want a lot of money in the arse pocket before you even dip the toe in the water. Amy respondent worth their salt would come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone chancing their arm here, so you'd want to make sure there is as near a slam dunk case to play, and that's hard with a Tort like this.

NUTLEY BOY

myshirt wrote: »

I tend to disagree Nutley. This is not an area you want to be sabre rattling on or tyre kicking in a hit and hope way with some vexatious and frivolous claims and ideas.

You'd want a lot of money in the arse pocket before you even dip the toe in the water. Amy respondent worth their salt would come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone chancing their arm here, so you'd want to make sure there is as near a slam dunk case to play, and that's hard with a Tort like this.

Fair enough.

My point was that if a plaintiff can reach the requisite standard of evidentiary proof required they should expect to succeed.

BTW many of these cases fall comfortably and properly within the tort of negligence.

As far as deliberately contrived and specious cases go I agree that they should get a kicking as I have seen a few too many of them.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

I tend to disagree Nutley. This is not an area you want to be sabre rattling on or tyre kicking in a hit and hope way with some vexatious and frivolous claims and ideas.

You'd want a lot of money in the arse pocket before you even dip the toe in the water. Amy respondent worth their salt would come down like a tonne of bricks on anyone chancing their arm here, so you'd want to make sure there is as near a slam dunk case to play, and that's hard with a Tort like this.

There is chancing their arm and then there are people with lasting mental health injury/issues though no?

challengemaster

Business Cat wrote: »

You could try and claim off one of the people involved in the crash but you would be most likely be laughed at by every insurer and court in the country tbh.

There are chancers when it comes to claims then there are chancers.

This would fall into the latter category.

Except there's already a precedent for this in the country

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/his-screams-stayed-with-me-woman-sued-for-damages-after-witnessing-husband-trapped-in-car-795709.html

Woman who after hearing about husbands car accident - drives to the crash and then claims damages off the other party for suffering caused.

grogi

challengemaster wrote: »

Except there's already a precedent for this in the country

Strictly speaking a settlement does not create precedent...

challengemaster

grogi wrote: »

Strictly speaking a settlement does not create precedent...

No, I'm aware of that alright and was going to mention it... but the fact it was settled says a lot..