A fcuk you to insurance companies

trixiebust

I had a very minor accident in 2011 ( about 5kph on a roundabout ).

Well the final bill arrived yesterday. The total paid out.... 85k!!!

Injuries that were described as
" soft tissue " resulting in this amount of a payoff are diabolical. I'm beyond horrified at the amount of money being paid on my behalf.

To the doctor who signed off on these injuries, to the judge who awarded so much, to the solicitor who's earned a nice payday - fcuk you all. Life is tough at the minute & this compounds it all for me, so again - fcuk you all.

This country is a joke.

LirW

Were you by chance the other party involved into the roundabout accidents where the same guy claimed 2 or 3 times (2 in the same roundabout) in Mayo somewhere and he got this insane payout?

Off to the news you go, they love stories like that.

trixiebust

LirW wrote:

Were you by chance the other party involved into the roundabout accidents where the same guy claimed 2 or 3 times (2 in the same roundabout) in Mayo somewhere and he got this insane payout?

LirW wrote:

Off to the news you go, they love stories like that.

No - happened in Mitchelstown. I'd love to know where to go with this, be it a politician or something.

The claimant got 45k, the rest divvied up between the professions.

LirW

So, how's the insurance premium doing?


No honestly I'd love to say something stupid but I honestly can't process this.

lawred2

trixiebust wrote: »

No - happened in Mitchelstown. I'd love to know where to go with this, be it a politician or something.

The claimant got 45k, the rest divvied up between the professions.

well there you go..

can't bate a vested interest

LirW

Even so, 45k for a soft tissue injury is ridiculous.

trixiebust

Is there anywhere I can query this? I've tried contacting my insurance company, I'm waiting for a call back ( since yesterday ). It's like no one cares - it's paid out & that's that.

Sue Pa Key Pa

So your thread title is a big fcuk you to your insurance company, yet it appears that they have being fighting on your behalf since 2011 to minimise the loss. You should address your anger towards the person who claimed against you and the professionals that supported and facilitated this.

On a practical note, as the accident was in 2011, surely you have already incurred any additional premium increases because of it and built your NCB back up?

.......

This post has been deleted.

delboythedub

Dashcam , Dashcam , Dashcam , end

trixiebust

The medical report, which I still have, stated a recovery time of 3 to 6 months. It's basically a sore back for a while.Oh, anxiety was also included - client previously suffering, which was exacerbated by the ' crash '.

theoneeyedman

trixiebust wrote: »

The claimant got 45k, the rest divvied up between the professions.

Is that a typical proportion, ie almost 50/50?
Janey...

trixiebust

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

So your thread title is a big fcuk you to your insurance company, yet it appears that they have being fighting on your behalf since 2011 to minimise the loss. You should address your anger towards the person who claimed against you and the professionals that supported and facilitated this.

I don't understand how they have been fighting to minimise a loss. Do you think 85k means they fought it well?

trixiebust

delboythedub wrote:

Dashcam , Dashcam , Dashcam , end

I have one now - soon to be two.

Sue Pa Key Pa

trixiebust wrote:

I don't understand how they have been fighting to minimise a loss. Do you think 85k means they fought it well?

They appear to have spent up to 6 years fighting off the 3rd party. If the OP was liable for the accident, it means they concentrated their efforts on minimising the extent of the payout. They obviously accepted the OP "s version that it was a minor 5mph impact.

Then the 3rd party, aided by a legal team whose sole motivation is justice for the victim, weighs in with a medical report from a very expensive consultant confirming that the patient said he is feeling pain.

When liability is cut and dry, insurers try and settle early to keep costs down. When they come across an incident where they feel there is something not right, they will honour their duty to defend it as best they can. I obviously don't know the details of the case, but to answer your question, I think they gave it a good shot but when the claimant has his ducks in a line, it is a hard battle to win.

trixiebust

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

They appear to have spent up to 6 years fighting off the 3rd party. If the OP was liable for the accident, it means they concentrated their efforts on minimising the extent of the payout. They obviously accepted the OP "s version that it was a minor 5mph impact.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

Then the 3rd party, aided by a legal team whose sole motivation is justice for the victim, weighs in with a medical report from a very expensive consultant confirming that the patient said he is feeling pain.

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

When liability is cut and dry, insurers try and settle early to keep costs down. When they come across an incident where they feel there is something not right, they will honour their duty to defend it as best they can. I obviously don't know the details of the case, but to answer your question, I think they gave it a good shot but when the claimant has his ducks in a line, it is a hard battle to win.

So, basically tough ****. Ireland in a nutshell.

Rubberchikken

Buy a camera for the car. Wouldn't drive without one.
I agree layouts are ridiculous. Yes maybe some soft tissue injury leads to operations in later years but mot all of them.
Someitimas I think the insurance companies are happy to offload whatever they can just to be done, and to he'll with the honest folk.
But what can you do and :mad:

Sue Pa Key Pa

trixiebust wrote:

So, basically tough ****. Ireland in a nutshell.

I personally think that the levels of compensation available in Ireland are overly generous, even for genuine claims. As a society, we have become very self entitled and will make anyone suffer if they intrude in our bubble. We are too small an economy to absorb the bills that come with this behaviour and now we have outrageous insurance premiums as an example

Sue Pa Key Pa

Rubberchikken wrote:

Buy a camera for the car. Wouldn't drive without one. I agree layouts are ridiculous. Yes maybe some soft tissue injury leads to operations in later years but mot all of them. Someitimas I think the insurance companies are happy to offload whatever they can just to be done, and to he'll with the honest folk. But what can you do and

Defending their client for 6 years is not an insurer offloading whatever they can.

bloodless_coup

Someone crashed into me years ago I got the damage to my car paid for. Didn't occur to me at all to claim any kind of injury.

Hearing about all these massive payouts, I'm sorry I didn't!

TallGlass

delboythedub wrote: »

Dashcam , Dashcam , Dashcam , end

Insurance companies don't care if you have a dash cam or not to be honest. They don't discount your premium for having one.

Seth Brundle

trixiebust wrote: »

I had a very minor accident in 2011 ( about 5kph on a roundabout ).

...

Injuries that were described as
" soft tissue " resulting in this amount of a payoff are diabolical. I'm beyond horrified at the amount of money being paid on my behalf.

To the doctor who signed off on these injuries, to the judge who awarded so much, to the solicitor who's earned a nice payday - fcuk you all. Life is tough at the minute & this compounds it all for me, so again - fcuk you all.

This country is a joke.

I had a soft tissue injury many years ago. I'm still suffering now.
The GP reckoned it would disappear in about 6 months but was she wrong.
As for those involved including the solicitor and the consultant, should they work for free or what rate should these experts charge for in your expert opinion?

trixiebust wrote: »

The medical report, which I still have, stated a recovery time of 3 to 6 months. It's basically a sore back for a while.Oh, anxiety was also included - client previously suffering, which was exacerbated by the ' crash '.

What's your point?
Do you think they were lying? Other than your begrudgery what evidence have you of this?

trixiebust

TallGlass wrote:

Insurance companies don't care if you have a dash cam or not to be honest. They don't discount your premium for having one.

I have a front fitted now,when renewal time came, I rang & asked that question. I got the same answer as you too, "it's not something we do atm".

Seth Brundle

TallGlass wrote: »

Insurance companies don't care if you have a dash cam or not to be honest. They don't discount your premium for having one.

They do if it proves liability in favour of their client.

RustyNut

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I personally think that the levels of compensation available in Ireland are overly generous, even for genuine claims.

What ever about payments to injured parties being overly generous the payments extracted by the legal profession are scandalous.

TallGlass

trixiebust wrote: »

I have a front fitted now,when renewal time came, I rang & asked that question. I got the same answer as you too, "it's not something we do atm".

I have a 400€ system in my car. I also asked them about advanced driving discounts. Again told no.

Its like they don't want to give any type of incentive for driving well. Yet wonder why there are so many claims.

jjpep

Am, shouldn't you be taking from this that you need to be a more careful driver? You hit someone, caused them injury which apparently was 'worth' 45k in damage done to that person.

TallGlass

RustyNut wrote: »

What ever about payments to injured parties being overly generous the payments extracted by the legal profession are scandalous.

Exactly. Its total abuse like the free legal aid system. Literally like a revolving door.

beefburrito

Sounds like the bottle of bubbly was cracked open.

I think €45,000 would have probably been 15,000 if it was settled.

Your legal team may have been dragging their feet and been incompetent,so as time moves on 15 goes to 30 and 30 goes to 45 and so on.

Usually takes between 2 and 3 year's to settle a case like this.

Are you sure it was 5 kph as my car would probably do 20kph without even touching the accelerator in first gear....

Sue Pa Key Pa

TallGlass wrote:

Its like they don't want to give any type of incentive for driving well. Yet wonder why there are so many claims.

It is madness that insurers don't offer discounts for cameras in cars (many do for haulage fleets). Even if they prove you are in the wrong, it would allow Insurers settle quickly and keep costs down. It also would improve PR between Insurer and policyholder, as they could go the footage together and explain why they have made their decision. It will come, as will the increase in vehicle telematrics

trixiebust

kbannon wrote:

What's your point? Do you think they were lying? Other than your begrudgery what evidence have you of this?

I absolutely think they were lying. The report reads like a glorified sore back. A healing time of 3 to 6 months.


Begrudgery?? I had a very, very minor tip with another car, 45k + 45k in costs is the result. This isn't begrudgery, it's common sense. Figures like this are lunacy.

Sue Pa Key Pa

beefburrito wrote:

I think €45,000 would have probably been 15,000 if it was settled.

Quick and easy settlements are part of the reason we have huge premiums now

trixiebust

beefburrito wrote:

Your legal team may have been dragging their feet and been incompetent,so as time moves on 15 goes to 30 and 30 goes to 45 and so on.

beefburrito wrote:

Usually takes between 2 and 3 year's to settle a case like this.

beefburrito wrote:

Are you sure it was 5 kph as my car would probably do 20kph without even touching the accelerator in first gear....

They had rejected previous offers from my insurers, took the claim all the way to the high court.

As regards the accident - I was in first gear in slow moving traffic, trying to join a roundabout.No damage done to their car.

TallGlass

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Quick and easy settlements are part of the reason we have huge premiums now

In fairness can you blame the insurance companies. 15k payout. Battle it and you'll be looking at 85k total payout.

I mean come on, how can you go from 15k to 85k. Ireland's justice system is run by lunatics. Its really is.

You have to laugh at the ads the insurance companies run.

Half the claim is heading to the justice system. They are the real crooks in all this.

Seth Brundle

trixiebust wrote: »

I absolutely think they were lying. The report reads like a glorified sore back. A healing time of 3 to 6 months.


Begrudgery?? I had a very, very minor tip with another car, 45k + 45k in costs is the result. This isn't begrudgery, it's common sense. Figures like this are lunacy.

My report possibly also read like a glorified sore neck but that doesn't mean I was lying.
You're bitter because you fecked up. Don't make assumptions over the other person though as not everyone is a scammer!
As for the costs, these would have not occurred if you were more careful. I note that you haven't made any suggestions as to what the expensive legal and medical fees should be.

Fanny Wank

Here's the book of quantum, people can decide if awards are over generous or not (I believe they are - massively so)

Thing is the level of these awards is not the fault of companies. Neither are the other factors that have lead to Increased awards when litigation is involved

Insurance awards are like most things in Ireland - other people's money being thrown around. Normally it's the taxpayer's money and as there's so few net contributors in Ireland most people don't care. Is this case it costs everyone who drives

You can't have injury awards way above the norm in other countries and low premiums, it's simply not possible

TallGlass

Holy ****, so if you break your nose in a crash your up a minimum of 18k for a minor injury.

So get a hit in the back of the car folks, get someone to give you a quick slap across the face.

Reading over that document the more I read it, the more I am thinking that the person who wrote that was either drunk or high on drugs..

E. Hand

Minor up to €21,700

Minor sprains are mild injuries where there is no tearing of the ligament, and often
no movement is lost, although there may be tenderness and slight swelling which
has substantially recovered.

Is that for real, €21,700 for spraining your wrist?

LirW

When I was heavily pregnant I wanted to get into my car and I parked in a temporary parking spot where the road wasn't great, there were a lot of potholes. I actually didn't see properly of course because huge bump and tripped, almost fell and sprained my ankle that I had struggles walking until the baby was here.
I jokingly said I should totally sue the council for some money. Now that I read that and the more I read about these payouts it's scary to think I probably would have won. It's ridiculous.

Fanny Wank

TallGlass wrote: »

Holy ****, so if you break your nose in a crash your up a minimum of 18k for a minor injury.

So get a hit in the back of the car folks, get someone to give you a quick slap across the face.

Reading over that document the more I read it, the more I am thinking that the person who wrote that was either drunk or high on drugs..

E. Hand

Minor up to €21,700

Minor sprains are mild injuries where there is no tearing of the ligament, and often
no movement is lost, although there may be tenderness and slight swelling which
has substantially recovered.

Is that for real, €21,700 for spraining your wrist?

The book of quantum hadn't been updated since the inception of the injuries board (the old PIAB) in 2004 or 2005 I think

Scanned it a week or two ago and was simply flabbergasted at some of the award levels. Awards like this are why premiums are so high. Yes the nasty insurance companies want to make a profit (just like any private enterprise) but your ire (not specifically aimed at you TallGlass) is misplaced.

Also just to clarify the book of quantum is publicly available. I haven't posted up anything confidential

Dave147

trixiebust wrote:

The medical report, which I still have, stated a recovery time of 3 to 6 months. It's basically a sore back for a while.Oh, anxiety was also included - client previously suffering, which was exacerbated by the ' crash '.

To be fair, my medical report said they expected a full recovery in 6 months as I have soft tissue damage from a crash coming onto the link from the Kinsale road roundabout, I was in physio yesterday 9 years after the accident, I wasn't at fault and I'm still suffering and probably will be for life so it's not all chancers claiming for tissue damage, I also have nerve damage where if anyone touches me without warning I get vicious spasms, keep your 85k if I could have my back repaired!

Sue Pa Key Pa

There is no doubting that whiplash is a terrible thing. The problem is that it cannot be detected by scans or X-rays, so the level of pain is down to what the person says it is. Couple that with high compensation levels and the temptation is too much for some. The UK is moving to treatment based compensation, something a fraudster wouldn't be interested in.

CeilingFly

Until such time the legal profession are held accountable for encouraging scammers, getting them to exaggerate their claims, encouraging scum to claim and then creating a near unbelievable bs story of "how this has ruined my life" which creates stupidly ridiculous awards by courts, then the scammers and high awards will continue.

Alan Shatter was the only politician that was willing to take on the legal profession, but was thwarted by the profession and their contacts in the media.

Of course if you call out the scamming legal profession they'll sue you for defamation.

Imagine - there is no independent body you can make a complaint to about a solicitor no matter how incompetent they are.

And that needs to be addressed.

Gen.Zhukov

Claims will keep increasing exponentially and here's my take on it.
Obviously, the scum will keep the exaggerated claims up and bring more scum into the game. That is one ever increasing circle. (No slight on the genuine claimants)

But I foresee a new group becoming involved. That group are the decent, non litigious type. The type that gets out of the car after a rear end tip and says 'ah there's no damage, go on'. But this type are being ridden senseless every year by the Ins co's so it's only a matter of time before 'enough is enough' and the next chance they get, they go for the claim.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Gen.Zhukov wrote:

But I foresee a new group becoming involved. That group are the decent, non litigious type. The type that gets out of the car after a rear end tip and says 'ah there's no damage, go on'. But this type are being ridden senseless every year by the Ins co's so it's only a matter of time before 'enough is enough' and the next chance they get, they go for the claim.

We passed that stage a few years back. Every class, creed and colour is tempted

TallGlass

I have to agree I think Shatter was certainly one of the best if not the best Minister for Justice this country has ever seen. Sadly, hindsight is a great thing now. I also think the current Tánaiste we have is quite literally one of the worst Minister for Justices we have ever had. I don't blame her, but it really is a position for someone with a Justice background to know what is going on.

Henry Ford III

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

There is no doubting that whiplash is a terrible thing. The problem is that it cannot be detected by scans or X-rays, so the level of pain is down to what the person says it is. Couple that with high compensation levels and the temptation is too much for some. The UK is moving to treatment based compensation, something a fraudster wouldn't be interested in.

That'd be interesting if it ever appears here.

The lawyers would hate it though, which might make it impossible to introduce.

galwaytt

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

There is no doubting that whiplash is a terrible thing.

Stop right there.

loyatemu

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That'd be interesting if it ever appears here.

The lawyers would hate it though, which might make it impossible to introduce.

be great news for osteopaths, chiropractors and other practitioners of voodoo.

Sue Pa Key Pa

galwaytt wrote:

Stop right there.

No

Gatling

Op did you post the same thread months back

trixiebust

Gatling wrote:

Op did you post the same thread months back

Yes - when the claimants figure was awarded. The total paid out arrived & it was doubled. From the injuries described, the payout & fees are extortionate.