Burglar sues shop owner after he injured his testicles while robbing the premises.

Pat Mustard

Business Cat wrote: »

The cost of public and employers liability has spiked over the last few years too.

Many businesses cannot operate without these insurances so it's not optional for them.

Business Cat wrote: »

If insurers are screwing consumers over then how come there hasn't been any major increases in home insurance premiums over the last number of years?

Can you back this up, please. Newspaper reports indicate that home insurance has risen.
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/inflation-up-as-car-health-and-home-insurance-costs-increase-34785783.html

Business Cat wrote: »

The fact of the matter is there is an underlying element in the legal fraternity that is as odious and untrustworthy as the people they represent.

This does not account for the recent huge increases in the cost of insurance premia. The insurance companies said that it the recent increases are due to the cost of claims. This was true for many years previously but now it is not true any more. It can be shown that the cost of claims does not account for these huge increases. It's in the report of the Cost of Insurance Working Group.

You mention reserves. If insurance companies are increasing premia to increase their reserves for motor insurance claims, then they should say that instead of this repeated nonsense about increased cost of claims, which can be shown not to be reason.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

We can agree on that much.

It also helps if all the rival businesses (the ones you talk of as exerting competitive pressures), want to maintain huge margins.

All businesses want to maintain huge margins. It is in their nature. They typically don't because of competitive pressures.

Are you suggesting these pressures do not exist in the Irish market, and if so where is your evidence? Even better, why not set up an insurance company and make some easy money?

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It's in the report of the Cost of Insurance Working Group.

It isn't, and you should stop saying that.

Pat Mustard

Deleted User wrote: »

It isn't, and you should stop saying that.

What it says is that there is no basis for the suggestion that cost of claims is responsible for the recent increases in car insurance.

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

What it says is that there is no basis for the suggestion that cost of claims is responsible for the recent increases in car insurance.

Can you quote the relevant passage because I can't find it.

I've found this (page 40):

"In summary, the balance of costs and revenues has been off kilter for several years and is in
line with the insurance industry view that premiums and investment income have decreased
while claims costs have increased, in particular incurred claims costs, leading to sustained
losses. Regulatory returns submitted to the Central Bank, for companies subject to prudential
regulation in Ireland or operating through branches on a freedom of establishment basis for
Irish motor risk, show combined underwriting losses of close to €700 million for the years
2013 to 2015, inclusive. "

So it reads to me that insurance companies were making a loss on motor insurance 2013-2015 and recent hikes are an obvious response to that situation.

I may have read things wrong though.

Pat Mustard

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105781690&postcount=43

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105781690&postcount=43

Neither of those quotes back up your statement.

Your statement was that the report says there is "no basis for the suggestion that cost of claims is responsible for the recent increases in car insurance."

I just want one quote from the report that backs that up, not a link to two irrelevant quotes in a previous post.

TallGlass

This is mental, so what next will we have the following?

Robber comes into rob shop with gun pointing at owner.

Owner, 'Yes yes, have the money, actually Mr Robber, can you just pause there for a moment?'

Robber 'What?'

Owner, 'Hold on a moment please, I need to grab a mop and clean up the spillage on the ground in case you fall on the way out a sue me'. Actually, 'can I hold the door for you on the way out, just incase you trip or it hits you'

Robber 'What?'

Owner 'Actually I will come outside to and let the Garda not to physically confront you just incase your injured'

Sue Pa Key Pa

Every multinational business expects it's individual subsidiaries to be able to stand on it's own 2 feet and pay it's way.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You mention reserves. If insurance companies are increasing premia to increase their reserves for motor insurance claims, then they should say that instead of this repeated nonsense about increased cost of claims, which can be shown not to be reason.

Having to increase what was normally put aside as a reserve for any given claim is an increase in the cost of claims

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Having to increase what was normally put aside as a reserve for any given claim is an increase in the cost of claims

Can you show that "what is normally put aside" accounts for these huge increases?

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Can you show that "what is normally put aside" accounts for these huge increases?

"In summary, the balance of costs and revenues has been off kilter for several years and is in line with the insurance industry view that premiums and investment income have decreased while claims costs have increased, in particular incurred claims costs, leading to sustained losses. Regulatory returns submitted to the Central Bank, for companies subject to prudential regulation in Ireland or operating through branches on a freedom of establishment basis for Irish motor risk, show combined underwriting losses of close to €700 million for the years 2013 to 2015, inclusive. "

In other words motor insurance was loss making in Ireland 2013-2015 and premiums have increased as companies realise they need to to cover the cost of current and future claims.

This is from the report you keep linking to.

Pat Mustard

Deleted User wrote: »

Your statement was that the report says there is "no basis for the suggestion that cost of claims is responsible for the recent increases in car insurance."

I just want one quote from the report that backs that up, not a link to two irrelevant quotes in a previous post.

Those quotes are extremely relevant. You choose to ignore that. No point in you and I discussing this any further.

ziggyman17

the law is a joke, if you break in to someone else property then you should lose all rights to self of enlightenment regarding accidents and whatever, the biggest accident I see here is the burglar being born in the first place,

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Those quotes are extremely relevant. You choose to ignore that. No point in you and I discussing this any further.

Ok, this is your first quote:

"It has been stated by some stakeholders that legal costs are a significant factor in the rising cost of motor insurance claims. However, there is no statistical basis for the measurement of legal costs either in the economy in general or in relation to the legal costs associated with motor insurance. The courts do not record legal costs."

summary, it isn't possible to measure legal costs in relation to the insurance industry as they are not recorded. Legal costs, not costs of claims.


Second quote:

Some stakeholders advise that they have had to increase reserves to take account of future cost of claims arising from a number of changes in the legislative environment. This includes the change in jurisdictional limits. As outlined in this Chapter, available evidence does not support this assertion in relation to the new limits.

summary: there is no evidence that insurers have necessarily had to increase reserves.

Neither of these quotes is anything to do with claims, as anyone who can read will be able to see.

i am sure you don't want to continue talking to me, because you are lying and spoofing and I am calling you out on it.

_Brian

brevity wrote: »

One of these days someone is going to go vigilante - the justice system seems to be all over the place.

They have a vigilante group over in west Cavan, has reduced crime. Gets support of the community.

https://www.todayfm.com/There-is-a-risk-but-we-have-to-protect-our-local-community-

Some members have access to legally held firearms.

On the issue of the insurance industry and premiums and the legal sector and costs, these disputes have raised their head before. I guess anyone looking on might get this feeling...

RoboRat

"We are satisfied from our instructions that you are responsible for this accident, therefore liable to compensate our client for this personal image loss and damage. We hearby call upon you to admit liability to our client in an open letter within 10 days from the date thereof."

I'm no legal eagle but could this just be a case of using an alternative means to get his client off any charges. If the owner admits liability, they are essentially agreeing that they are responsible and therefore the solicitor could argue their client wasn't necessarily trespassing as the owner has admitted responsibility... it could at least be used to muddy the waters somewhat/.

Liam McPoyle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On the issue of the insurance industry and premiums and the legal sector and costs, these disputes have raised their head before.

They raised their head previously with the introduction of the Injuries Board.

This was set up SPECIFICALLY in an attempt to stream line the claims process and remove the legal fraternity from it to expedite claims and reduce over all costs.

The fact that the legal fraternity was identified as a problem in the claims process and that efforts were made to remove them says it all, but no, they are the white knights fighting the cartel according to some.

I understand that in some cases the injured party needs legal assistance, particularly for more complex claims but the fact of the matter is that something like 90% of claims that go through the IB are represented by solicitors so it's essentially a broken system.

suicide_circus

^^^^the legal eagles will say it's working just fine

Liam McPoyle

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Many businesses cannot operate without these insurances so it's not optional for them.


Can you back this up, please. Newspaper reports indicate that home insurance has risen.
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/inflation-up-as-car-health-and-home-insurance-costs-increase-34785783.html


This does not account for the recent huge increases in the cost of insurance premia. The insurance companies said that it the recent increases are due to the cost of claims. This was true for many years previously but now it is not true any more. It can be shown that the cost of claims does not account for these huge increases. It's in the report of the Cost of Insurance Working Group.

You mention reserves. If insurance companies are increasing premia to increase their reserves for motor insurance claims, then they should say that instead of this repeated nonsense about increased cost of claims, which can be shown not to be reason.

There is no legal requirement for EL or PL insurance in this country.

A 10% rise in home insurance premiums is relatively small and would be in line with the increase in property values, construction costs etc, it's known as index linking.

You keep going on about that report.

Have a look at the 2015 central bank report.

Overall in the year insurers made an underwriting loss of around €200m on personal lines business ie car and home insurance.

An underwriting loss means that a company is paying out more in claims than they are taking in in premium.

As insurance is pooled risk paying out more than you take in is not sustainable and as such, premiums had to rise to balance the books.

Reserves are directly connected to premiums.

IIRC, under the Solvency II requirement, insurers hold a minimum of 200% capital reserves.

Basically means if they have €50m in outstanding claims they have to have a minimum of €150m in the bank to cover the costs.

Business Cat

Business Cat wrote: »

This was set up SPECIFICALLY in an attempt to stream line the claims process and remove the legal fraternity from it to expedite claims and reduce over all costs.

I certainly do not recall that it was ever set up to exclude lawyers. Remove the Courts, absolutely, expedite claims by removing the need to have Courts process everything, improve their efficiency and reduce costs. In fact there was little opposition to it from Solicitors anyway, who can argue against efficiency and minimising money frittered away needlessly.

Pat Mustard

Business Cat wrote: »

There is no legal requirement for EL or PL insurance in this country.

Yes but for example, certain licensed premises won't get "late licences" without PL insurance and many builders won't be considered for construction projects without it.

Business Cat wrote: »

A 10% rise in home insurance premiums is relatively small and would be in line with the increase in property values, construction costs etc, it's known as index linking.

Okay, I'd accept that.

Business Cat wrote: »

Reserves are directly connected to premiums.

IIRC, under the Solvency II requirement, insurers hold a minimum of 200% capital reserves.

Basically means if they have €50m in outstanding claims they have to have a minimum of €150m in the bank to cover the costs.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-raid-only-latest-chapter-in-insurance-controversies-1.3145884

In January, figures from the Central Statistics Office showed the cost of motor insurance had risen by 51 per cent since early 2011. One reader wrote to The Irish Times, some months back about how he had returned to the Republic after two years abroad to find his insurance had jumped from €373 to €3,673.

Much of the trouble can be traced back to before the financial crisis. When SeQuinn, once Ireland’s richest man, entered the insurance market in the mid-1990s, his tactic was to dramatically undercut established players in the industry.

All of this led to a race to the bottom among competitors, and, when the financial crisis struck, industry players were ill-equipped and under-resourced to deal with the fallout. They are still trying to recover those losses.

Quinn, for his part, ended up overstaffed, making losses, and lacking in solvency by the end of 2009. When the day of reckoning came, it was left to consumers to pick up the tab as the Government introduced a 2 per cent levy on all non-life and health insurance policies to help fund a €720 million shortfall at Quinn Insurance.

By December 2015, Quinn Insurance had cost the State’s Insurance Compensation Fund some €1.23 billion in terms of meeting claims from drivers with the insurer.

Despite allegations of price-fixing and gouging, the industry has always claimed insurance fraud as well as more claims and rising compensation were to blame for higher premiums.

It seems that insurance industry had not adequately prepared and now it's sticking it to the consumer, by massive increases in premiums/premia to shore up reserves. Do you disagree?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It seems that insurance industry had not adequately prepared and now it's sticking it to the consumer, by massive increases in premiums/premia to shore up reserves. Do you disagree?

As an individual point, I'd agree with that. Insurers were charging premiums far too low to meet the needs of the prevailing claims and the level of increases therefore appear dramatic to redress the situation. Insurers should not have been allowed offer those unsustainable premiums, but we are where we are. It's not "sticking it to the consumer", we are now all just paying the level of premium that our self entitled right to compensation (and fraud) demand to make the books balance

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

As an individual point, I'd agree with that. Insurers were charging premiums far too low to meet the needs of the prevailing claims and the level of increases therefore appear dramatic to redress the situation. Insurers should not have been allowed offer those unsustainable premiums, but we are where we are.

I can agree with this much anyway.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I can agree with this much anyway.

You should also try and agree that the Legal Profession is major contributor to our current predicament

Pat Mustard

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You should also try and agree that the Legal Profession is major contributor to our current predicament

Feel free to back up whatever point you wish to make.