Solicitors contributing to Ireland's Insurance Fraud Culture

Jurgen The German

Fanny **** wrote: »

Why engage with someone who thinks assets = profits?

Boredom, I suppose.

:pac:

threeball

I see Supermacs forked out over 420k this year on about 10 claims, over half of which were dismissed, in compensation and legal costs. I think the compo only came to 70k or so, rest was legal.

easypazz

threeball wrote: »

I see Supermacs forked out over 420k this year on about 10 claims, over half of which were dismissed, in compensation and legal costs. I think the compo only came to 70k or so, rest was legal.

Before anybody files a claim they should have to lodge sufficient funds with the court to cover the other parties costs in the event that they lose.

That would put a stop to it.

The exception being the high court where serious injury cases are heard such as paralysis, brain damage, amputation etc.

threeball

easypazz wrote: »

Before anybody files a claim they should have to lodge sufficient funds with the court to cover the other parties costs in the event that they lose.

That would put a stop to it.

The exception being the high court where serious injury cases are heard such as paralysis, brain damage, amputation etc.

From the chart I saw the fcukers got away Scot free whilst Supermacs had big costs in every instance. Greatest little country in the world in which to do business, enda said

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

Why engage with someone who thinks assets = profits?

How do you think they acquire the assets?

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Here's a hint, its none of the above, but that's all you are getting from me!

So it's you, a vested interest?

Cool story bud. But you know maths suggest definitely.

Jurgen The German

Boggles wrote: »

So it's you, a vested interest?

Cool story bud. But you know maths suggest definitely.

Why would I have a vested interest?

I work in the industry and have done for more than 10 years so I am in a very privileged position in comparison to most people on boards that are relying on google to form an opinion.

But a vested interest, you are mistaken.

I've been as critical of the industry as anyone, they made massive missteps in a race to the bottom in terms of motor pricing, driven by the likes of Setanta, Quinn and 123. 2 of those companies went belly up and 123 had to get over 200m of a bailout.

The reason why?

They under priced their policies and couldn't cover their claims, ergo, premiums had to rise. It's really not that difficult a concept.

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Why would I have a vested interest?

Jurgen The German wrote: »

I work in the industry

.

Ardillaun

Boggles wrote: »

Originally Posted by Jurgen The German View Post
Why would I have a vested interest?

Originally Posted by Jurgen The German View Post
I work in the industry

If ‘vested interests’ include people who work in the industry and know what they are talking about, then we need far more of them in these debates. P.ie has a similar thread going on at the moment and there’s nobody defending the insurance industry over there. My one problem with Irish legal experts in particular is that they are nearly always weighing in on the side of ever higher legal fees for them.

People who have only lived in Ireland or the US may not realize how utterly out of line Ireland is on compo claims. Even in a common law jurisdiction like Canada, expectations on this issue are quite different. Any time I rent a car in Ireland these days, I’m more worried about some fender bender leading to an endless whiplash claim than actually getting killed. The obvious question has been asked and not answered by anybody - if insurance is such a lucrative business here why have so many insurance companies left?

Boggles

Ardillaun wrote: »

If ‘vested interests’ include people who work in the industry and know

They pay a lobby dog to spin for them, they are adequately covered.

threeball

Ardillaun wrote: »

If ‘vested interests’ include people who work in the industry and know what they are talking about, then we need far more of them in these debates. P.ie has a similar thread going on at the moment and there’s nobody defending the insurance industry over there. My one problem with Irish legal experts in particular is that they are nearly always weighing in on the side of ever higher legal fees for them.

People who have only lived in Ireland or the US may not realize how utterly out of line Ireland is on compo claims. Even in a common law jurisdiction like Canada, expectations on this issue are quite different. Any time I rent a car in Ireland these days, I’m more worried about some fender bender leading to an endless whiplash claim than actually getting killed. The obvious question has been asked and not answered by anybody - if insurance is such a lucrative business here why have so many insurance companies left?

I don't know if its lucrative for anyone bar the claimants and the bloodsucking lawyers. I know of one incident close to me where the council reinstated paths in front of travellers houses. They put up all the relevant barriers and signs. Within a week there were 5 claims of trips and falls. Despite having pictures of all the correct procedures etc in position the insurers settled for 20k apiece out of court and told the guy in charge of the site they had no option as going to court was likely to cost treble at least. With a system as broken as that we have no chance of getting good insurers or insurance rates. There should be extremely hefty sentences for insurance fraud. Fines don't work as the never pay for any anythings just get away scott free.

Jurgen The German

Boggles wrote: »

They pay a lobby dog to spin for them, they are adequately covered.

You really do have your head in the sand.

Business people like Pat mcdonagh and Louis Fitzgerald have come out with criticisms of the culture of claims in the country and how it has affected their businesses. Irish public bodies who are a non profit organisation so no question of gouging or worrying about profits from them have half a billion worth of open claims.

You've pinned your cap on the big bad insurers and are so entrenched in that you cant climb down.

Thankfully, certainly with the sample I'm seeing on boards at least, you are in the minority that cant see the forest for the trees.

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

You really do have your head in the sand.

Business people like Pat mcdonagh and Louis Fitzgerald have come out with criticisms of the culture of claims in the country and how it has affected their businesses. Irish public bodies who are a non profit organisation so no question of gouging or worrying about profits from them have half a billion worth of open claims.

You've pinned your cap on the big bad insurers and are so entrenched in that you cant climb down.

Thankfully, certainly with the sample I'm seeing on boards at least, you are in the minority that cant see the forest for the trees.

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GyT5cV6jw

Jurgen The German

A tired argument made by someone ie you that clearly hasn't a scooby doo. Believe what you like sir, I know I'm right so that's good enough for me.

easypazz

Boggles wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GyT5cV6jw

Doherty has obviously decided that its not fraud but insurance companies profits, that has premiums so high.

That must be why companies are leaving, profits too high.

Ridiculously high awards, the ease at which people can make a free play for a payout are some of the many factors.

Louis Fitzgerald hit the nail on the head, if people who are claiming had the same accident at home they would barely bat an eyelid.

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

A tired argument made by someone ie you that clearly hasn't a scooby doo. Believe what you like sir, I know I'm right so that's good enough for me.

The CEO's disagree with you.

easypazz wrote: »

Doherty has obviously decided that its not fraud but insurance companies profits, that has premiums so high.

Double the UK apparently. Not bad given how they sabotaged their own market.

Jurgen The German

Boggles wrote: »

Double the UK apparently. Not bad given how they sabotaged their own market.

Orly?

In the uk in 2017 their net written premiums for non life business was about £38b.

They made about 6% profit on that so approx £2b profit.

Irish insurers entire income in 2017 was about €3.5b and they made around €227m profit on that.

So essentially the same.

Plus irish insurers lost €750m between 2012 and 2016.

Keep going though.

Wibbs

The woes of the Irish insurance industry is the bastard child of many fathers.

Much higher payouts on claims for one. The presence of a "compo culture" among many and not just the obvious ones like the "mobile gentlemen of the verge". Many Irish people seem to have a medically unusual case of Schrodinger's neck; both hard as tempered fcuking steel and soft as eggshell, at the same time.

Then we have various people in the system taking their cut of this pie; doctors, solicitors, mechanics etc.

Then we have the insurance industry itself, with decades long examples of often woeful financial management and lack of transparency couched in terms of "sensitive business information/trade secrets"*. EG the "stats" the industry gives are based on court cases and their results, results which make up a minority of payouts, most are settled "on the steps of the courthouse" for which no figures exist. We also have the issue Pearse Doherty highlighted. For all their whinging the industry seems decidedly lazy and lax in pursuing cases they think are fraud, while telling the public of so much fraud. Never mind that the same industry crowing about fraud and mad payouts has done little enough politically to get these things changed over decades.

Then we have the successive governments who will witter on about change in an election year, yet here we are decades later asking the same bloody questions.



*In particular motor insurance. Unlike house, health, life insurance, this is a legally mandated requirement. Drivers have to have it. It should be as transparent as possible. The Gardai can drive behind me and put my reg through their Automatic Number Plate Recognition(ANPR) system and see if I have paid my road tax, have outstanding warrants etc, yet the same system can't tell them if I'm insured or not. Why not?

Fanny Wank

Re fraud the guards don't want to know (and have told the companies so) unless it's a major case that will probably lead to a conviction (very few instances lead to a conviction). Why the insurers are so reluctant to state this in public I don't know. There is very little downside to attempting a fraudulent case. If fraud/lies are exposed then the claimant drops the claim or simply doesn't show up in court. Gets away Scot free but companies are left shouldering huge legal bills with no recourse. Exaggerate the impact of a genuine claim - no problem our great judiciary will still hand you a cheque for thousands despite your entitlement supposedly falling to zero in these cases

Tbh I don't envy anyone trying to communicate to the public. The CBI report this week showed substantial losses over a 10 year period but was presented as "gouging" and profiteering by the idiot media and lapped up by the idiot public. There's a "crisis" in crèches yet insurance costs are a negligible proportion of their income.

Insurers are private, for profit entities yet people who pay a grand for a smartphone that probably cost 20 quid to make cry about "excessive profits" (without defining excessive of course) in an industry where insurers target around 5% margin (to be fair and transparent this is before investment income)

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Orly?

In the uk in 2017 their net written premiums for non life business was about £38b.

They made about 6% profit on that so approx £2b profit.

Irish insurers entire income in 2017 was about €3.5b and they made around €227m profit on that.

So essentially the same.

Plus irish insurers lost €750m between 2012 and 2016.

Keep going though.

The figures came from the industry and are for 2018.

Keep going though.

easypazz

Boggles wrote: »

The figures came from the industry and are for 2018.

Keep going though.

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Its not the profit that is driving up claims its the ridiculous payouts being awarded.

Louis Fitzgerald summed it up perfect, if these things happened at home people would just get on with it.

Maybe you are delighted with yourself to be paying higher and higher premiums, but I dont think anybody else is with you on it, and we all know what the various causes are, its just you cant see it and there no point in us trying to explain it to you because you obviously wouldnt understand.

Boggles

easypazz wrote: »

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Its not the profit that is driving up claims its the ridiculous payouts being awarded.

Louis Fitzgerald summed it up perfect, if these things happened at home people would just get on with it.

Maybe you are delighted with yourself to be paying higher and higher premiums, but I dont think anybody else is with you on it, and we all know what the various causes are, its just you cant see it and there no point in us trying to explain it to you because you obviously wouldnt understand.

The central bank report supports none of that.

The cost of motor insurance claims fell by 2.5 per cent between 2009 and 2018 but premiums rose by 42 per cent, according to a Central Bank report which also revealed that insurers made an average of 9 per cent profit last year.

The first comprehensive study of premiums and cost claims in Ireland appears to cast doubt on longstanding industry claims that the higher cost of car insurance is the result of spiralling payouts and increased claims, resulting in low profitability.

It found that the average cost of claims per policy fell by 2.5 per cent from €437 to €426 between 2009 and 2018 while average premiums jumped by 42 per cent from €498 to €706.

Fanny Wank

CBI report is motor only. During this time liability was horrifically loss making while, on average, property probably made money

In 2018 the CBI shows the industry making 9% off a loss ratio of c60% - so I'm going to assume over the 10 year period as a rough guess loss ratio + 31% = margin

This isn't perfect, investment income was probably higher earlier in the period but expenses as a % of premium were undoubtedly higher as premiums have increased and more than one firm has introduced cost cutting programmes. It's probably not a bad estimate

Over the 10 year period average loss ratio was 75% - 15% higher than 2018. To paraphrase Troy McClure 9 minus 15 = negative fun. So the industry lost substantial money over the 10 year period

People are being lead by hacks like Charlie Weston and quoting figures that don't tell the whole story or deliberately mask the detail underneath

Between 2009 & 2013 premiums dropped 13%. premiums dropped over a period when the industry made bad losses. During this time Quinn & RSA both essentially went bust. 2014 was peak year for industry losses. Claims costs went up almost overnight due to a number of changes in the claims environment. FBD needed to raise capital and its CEO left

From 2013-18 premiums increased by 62%. So premiums rose from a very unprofitable base to a profitable base. During this time claims costs increased. Frequency decreased while, in particular, bodily injury claim costs shot up by 54%. I'm not sure how many time people on this board, in particular people posting on the legal forum, claimed costs had not increased. Despite coming from a ghastly unprofitable base and costs increasing the media and the law society called rip off.

The PIAB was introduced in 2004 or so. Claims costs dropped (awards actually increased but when legal fees where removed everyone won bar the legal profession). Premiums dropped

If claims costs drop again (I'm not confident it'll happen any time soon) premiums will drop. Not before

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

People are being lead by hacks like Charlie Weston and quoting figures that don't tell the whole story or deliberately mask the detail underneath

No they aren't that is just feeble deflection.

They are the central bank figures given to them by the industry.

I'm going to trust my gut instinct here and go with Pearse Doherty on this. He actually seems to be the only one doing anything about it.

Que shinbot, terrorists and bank robbers deflection.

Fanny Wank

Boggles we've already established you haven't a notion what you're on about

Your response above (ignoring everything I wrote) further proves this. please tell me, oh one of great insurance intellect, what I've written (based on the CBI report) is false?

Fanny Wank

Posted this earlier - I'll repost

"Tbh I don't envy anyone trying to communicate to the public. The CBI report this week showed substantial losses over a 10 year period but was presented as "gouging" and profiteering by the idiot media and lapped up by the idiot public. There's a "crisis" in crèches yet insurance costs are a negligible proportion of their income."

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

Boggles we've already established you haven't a notion what you're on about

Yes no one has a clue about anything, everyone is to blame apart from the industry.

Remind me again how many active investigations are there at the minute?

Fanny Wank

And still the industry expert can't point out what I've said that's incorrect. The irony being you posted about deflection a few mins ago

Carry on, Charlie Weston & the Indo won't steer you wrong

Oh and just as a reminder, assets don't equal profits

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

Oh and just as a reminder, assets don't equal profits

You never answered my question the last time and I doubt you will this time.

But, i'll try again, how do you acquire assets?

Fanny Wank

Ask someone who's started a company and has yet to make a sale, let alone make a profit

RSA had plenty of assets when they went bust. Ditto FBD when they'd to raise capital to continue in business

Anyhow I'm still awaiting you telling me what I posted that's wrong. Still waiting