Solicitors contributing to Ireland's Insurance Fraud Culture

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

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

Yes, by selling their assets they acquired by making profits.

This isn't really difficult TBF.

Fanny Wank

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, by selling their assets they acquired by making profits.

This isn't really difficult TBF.

Oh good god

I'm hoping for your sake you're trolling

Anyway I'm gonna chat to my 4 year old now, get back to some sensible conversation.

Still waiting, waiting for you to point out what I posted re the CBI report that's incorrect......

Boggles

Fanny **** wrote: »

Anyway I'm gonna chat to my 4 year old now, get back to some sensible conversation.

Great. Will you try explain to him why the ripped off customers should fell sorry for an industry that fúcked a market where the product was uniquely mandatory.

i.e. illegal not to have.

Let me know his response.

easypazz

Boggles wrote: »

Great. Will you try explain to him why the ripped off customers should fell sorry for an industry that fúcked a market where the product was uniquely mandatory.

i.e. illegal not to have.

Let me know his response.

You dont have to have insurance to open a creche.

Boggles

easypazz wrote: »

You dont have to have insurance to open a creche.

I never suggested you did.

Eric Cartman

Boggles wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

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

There is a wide chasm between straight up fraud crash for cash etc... and exagerated claims, false whiplash and back pain claims that can never be proved by the gardai or beyond reasonable doubt, investigation teams within the industry are using tools like private investigators and social media to gather this data before proceeding. Have a look at how many solicitors deal in personal injury and the awards that they get,

The insurance industry figures have shown for years that personal injury claims make up more payout than any other category (including property damage and writing off cars) and of personal injury claims, a majority are for injuries that proof of their existence is questionable at best.

Jurgen The German

Boggles wrote: »

Great. Will you try explain to him why the ripped off customers should fell sorry for an industry that fúcked a market where the product was uniquely mandatory.

i.e. illegal not to have.

Let me know his response.

Heres a few tidbits for you Boggles.

From around 2009 to 2013/2014 there was a period of give away pricing and motorists never had it better in terms of number of underwriters in the market and the prices available. Premiums were been sold at way below sustainable levels for a couple of years yet people weren't crying about their policy being too cheap. Consumers reaped the benefits of these prices during that period of time so if you take the lower pricing add it to the higher pricing and average it out over a 10 or 15 year period, its much more palatable.

Setanta and Quinn went out of business due to under reserving. 123 had a €200m hole in their coffers due to under reserving. FBD were on the brink of collapse and had to get nearly €100m from an investment firm to shore up the deficit.

The arse fell out of international money markets so the investment incomes that would have traditionally helped bridge the gap dried up.

The ECB introduced the mandatory Solvency II agreement which means that insurers have to hold something like 200% of their current claims reserves in cash in order to pay claims.

So bargain basement pricing, the same level of claims, insurers going bankrupt and regulatory requirements means prices had to rise, they just had to, its unfathomable to me how such a basic need is lost on some people.

Even with 42% price increases insurers made a 9% average profit in 2018. So if they had not raised prices there would have been a 33% loss. How many of them would be still around if they were running with those kinds of losses?

Insurance is pooled risk so an insurer takes in premium from motor, household, property and public / employers liability and pays the claims from the same pot. Creches cant get insurance due to insurers exiting the market, many pubs, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, play centres and sports clubs are all struggling to either get cover and if they can, to pay the massive premiums. There is no legal requirement for any of those industries to have insurance. What do all of those industries have in common?

All have significant exposure to the public and as such are at the mercy of the claim culture that has been fostered and encouraged by certain sections.

If you want to take a politicians view as gospel, someone with no vested interest in generating publicity of course and has nothing to gain at all by being seen as some kind of champion of the people, then thats up to you but you should also be prepared to have your ignorance challenged by people that work in the industry. Posting a youtube video or a link to a newspaper article merely illustrates that you lack the ability of free thinking and opinion forming when it comes to the insurance market.

I've said it all along, insurers are not blameless, they are the ones that got into a tit for tat price cutting war and if premiums were at a static figure of around €500 to €600 per year for the average driver over the last decade then the rises wouldn't have been required. That however would still not have done anything for the basket case that is the public liability market in Ireland in 2019.

Thats about as clear as I can make it, its free education from me to you, take it or leave it, thats up to you.

Boggles

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Heres a few tidbits for you Boggles.

From around 2009 to 2013/2014 there was a period of give away pricing and motorists never had it better in terms of number of underwriters in the market and the prices available. Premiums were been sold at way below sustainable levels for a couple of years yet people weren't crying about their policy being too cheap. Consumers reaped the benefits of these prices during that period of time so if you take the lower pricing add it to the higher pricing and average it out over a 10 or 15 year period, its much more palatable.

Setanta and Quinn went out of business due to under reserving. 123 had a €200m hole in their coffers due to under reserving. FBD were on the brink of collapse and had to get nearly €100m from an investment firm to shore up the deficit.

The arse fell out of international money markets so the investment incomes that would have traditionally helped bridge the gap dried up.

The ECB introduced the mandatory Solvency II agreement which means that insurers have to hold something like 200% of their current claims reserves in cash in order to pay claims.

So bargain basement pricing, the same level of claims, insurers going bankrupt and regulatory requirements means prices had to rise, they just had to, its unfathomable to me how such a basic need is lost on some people.

Even with 42% price increases insurers made a 9% average profit in 2018. So if they had not raised prices there would have been a 33% loss. How many of them would be still around if they were running with those kinds of losses?

Insurance is pooled risk so an insurer takes in premium from motor, household, property and public / employers liability and pays the claims from the same pot. Creches cant get insurance due to insurers exiting the market, many pubs, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, play centres and sports clubs are all struggling to either get cover and if they can, to pay the massive premiums. There is no legal requirement for any of those industries to have insurance. What do all of those industries have in common?

All have significant exposure to the public and as such are at the mercy of the claim culture that has been fostered and encouraged by certain sections.

If you want to take a politicians view as gospel, someone with no vested interest in generating publicity of course and has nothing to gain at all by being seen as some kind of champion of the people, then thats up to you but you should also be prepared to have your ignorance challenged by people that work in the industry. Posting a youtube video or a link to a newspaper article merely illustrates that you lack the ability of free thinking and opinion forming when it comes to the insurance market.

I've said it all along, insurers are not blameless, they are the ones that got into a tit for tat price cutting war and if premiums were at a static figure of around €500 to €600 per year for the average driver over the last decade then the rises wouldn't have been required. That however would still not have done anything for the basket case that is the public liability market in Ireland in 2019.

Thats about as clear as I can make it, its free education from me to you, take it or leave it, thats up to you.

I all ready covered that when I said they "fúcked the market".

I fail to see how that is the consumers fault though, all though of course as usual they pick up the tab for the insurance industry's reckless gambling. Sounds all to familiar.

As for a politician who is actively pushing legislation to protect consumers, yip I'll side with him over any vested interest.

Why wouldn't I?

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The insurance industry figures have shown for years that personal injury claims make up more payout than any other category (including property damage and writing off cars) and of personal injury claims, a majority are for injuries that proof of their existence is questionable at best.

Have you a link to these figures?

McCrack

Jurgen The German wrote: »

Heres a few tidbits for you Boggles.

From around 2009 to 2013/2014 there was a period of give away pricing and motorists never had it better in terms of number of underwriters in the market and the prices available. Premiums were been sold at way below sustainable levels for a couple of years yet people weren't crying about their policy being too cheap. Consumers reaped the benefits of these prices during that period of time so if you take the lower pricing add it to the higher pricing and average it out over a 10 or 15 year period, its much more palatable.

Setanta and Quinn went out of business due to under reserving. 123 had a €200m hole in their coffers due to under reserving. FBD were on the brink of collapse and had to get nearly €100m from an investment firm to shore up the deficit.

The arse fell out of international money markets so the investment incomes that would have traditionally helped bridge the gap dried up.

The ECB introduced the mandatory Solvency II agreement which means that insurers have to hold something like 200% of their current claims reserves in cash in order to pay claims.

So bargain basement pricing, the same level of claims, insurers going bankrupt and regulatory requirements means prices had to rise, they just had to, its unfathomable to me how such a basic need is lost on some people.

Even with 42% price increases insurers made a 9% average profit in 2018. So if they had not raised prices there would have been a 33% loss. How many of them would be still around if they were running with those kinds of losses?

Insurance is pooled risk so an insurer takes in premium from motor, household, property and public / employers liability and pays the claims from the same pot. Creches cant get insurance due to insurers exiting the market, many pubs, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, play centres and sports clubs are all struggling to either get cover and if they can, to pay the massive premiums. There is no legal requirement for any of those industries to have insurance. What do all of those industries have in common?

All have significant exposure to the public and as such are at the mercy of the claim culture that has been fostered and encouraged by certain sections.

If you want to take a politicians view as gospel, someone with no vested interest in generating publicity of course and has nothing to gain at all by being seen as some kind of champion of the people, then thats up to you but you should also be prepared to have your ignorance challenged by people that work in the industry. Posting a youtube video or a link to a newspaper article merely illustrates that you lack the ability of free thinking and opinion forming when it comes to the insurance market.

I've said it all along, insurers are not blameless, they are the ones that got into a tit for tat price cutting war and if premiums were at a static figure of around €500 to €600 per year for the average driver over the last decade then the rises wouldn't have been required. That however would still not have done anything for the basket case that is the public liability market in Ireland in 2019.

Thats about as clear as I can make it, its free education from me to you, take it or leave it, thats up to you.

Just on the licensed premises and clubs, proof of public liability insurance is a requirement at the annual licensing courts

easypazz

McCrack wrote: »

Just on the licensed premises and clubs, proof of public liability insurance is a requirement at the annual licensing courts

That is not true.

McCrack

easypazz wrote: »

That is not true.

It's a requirement for dance licenses and some judges ask it for clubs

Ardillaun

I thought Pearse had some decent, and often unanswered, questions on the banking scandal but he’s less impressive now. Again, the same simple question for him and all like him: if insurance in Ireland is so wonderfully profitable for the long term, those companies must be flocking here, right? Right? I know next to nothing about it but I think the fact that you have to figure out future risk makes it more complex than it might look at any particular moment, something Paddy has had to learn to his cost a few times when the industry has needed bailouts. That much I do understand.

Boggles

Ardillaun wrote: »

if insurance in Ireland is so wonderfully profitable for the long term, those companies must be flocking here, right? Right?

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/eu-to-investigate-if-insurance-ireland-running-a-cartel-1.3892341

The European Commission opened a formal investigation into whether Insurance Ireland is operating a cartel by restricting access to a claims database, almost two years after it raided the body as part of an inquiry into a number of issues in the sector.

CrankyHaus

Boggles wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/eu-to-investigate-if-insurance-ireland-running-a-cartel-1.3892341

How do you suggest that claims register should be operated and funded if those using it weren't required to pay in and contribute to the cost of running it?

If everyone was given free access then there'd obviously be no money to run it.

Anyway that database is just a privately funded version of the claims register legislated for in Section 30 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 :

“The Courts Service shall, on the commencement of this section, establish and maintain a register of personal injuries actions.”

For the 15 years since then the Department of Justice has simply refused to meet its statutory obligations and establish such a Register so Insurance Companies in Ireland have had to chip in to maintain their own one, out of their own pocket.

That "Cartel" allegation is therefore a complete red herring, designed to mislead the public on the issue.

Boggles

CrankyHaus wrote: »

How do you suggest that claims register should be operated and funded if those using it weren't required to pay in and contribute to the cost of running it?

If everyone was given free access then there'd obviously be no money to run it.

Anyway that database is just a privately funded version of the claims register legislated for in Section 30 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 :

“The Courts Service shall, on the commencement of this section, establish and maintain a register of personal injuries actions.”

For the 15 years since then the Department of Justice has simply refused to meet its statutory obligations and establish such a Register so Insurance Companies in Ireland have had to chip in to maintain their own one, out of their own pocket.

That "Cartel" allegation is therefore a complete red herring, designed to mislead the public on the issue.

You'll have to take that up with the European Commission, it's their investigation.

CrankyHaus

Boggles wrote: »

You'll have to take that up with the European Commission, it's their investigation.

I'm taking it up with you because you raised it here on this discussion. Surely you're able to discuss the substantive issues around it rather than parrot empty statements like that?

Boggles

CrankyHaus wrote: »

I'm taking it up with you because you raised it here on this discussion. Surely you're able to discuss the substantive issues around it rather than parrot empty statements like that?

It was in response to a post wondering why insurers are not entering into the market, the charge is because it operates like a "cartel".

With at least one insurer leaving the market stating that as a reason, now there is an active investigation.

They are facts, not opinion, if you think they are "empty statements" then fair play to you, I don't think anything I can say will change your line of thinking.

So have a good one.

Ardillaun

Let’s assume these allegations are true for a moment. This so-called cartel still wouldn’t stop other companies entering the market if profit margins were as enormous as some people imagine.

Eric Cartman

those campaigning for open access to the insurance database sure arent thinking of what that would result in .

details of previous claims and awards being published in newspapers, employers using claim data to deny you jobs, private investigators using claim data to chase down debts etc...

As much as it would get me a lot of jollies exposing people , I really don't think youre looking at the larger picture about the contents of that database.

picture anyone who ever claimed against an employer never working again....

easypazz

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those campaigning for open access to the insurance database sure arent thinking of what that would result in .

details of previous claims and awards being published in newspapers, employers using claim data to deny you jobs, private investigators using claim data to chase down debts etc...

As much as it would get me a lot of jollies exposing people , I really don't think youre looking at the larger picture about the contents of that database.

picture anyone who ever claimed against an employer never working again....

It would stamp out the claims culture straight away though.

Eric Cartman

easypazz wrote: »

It would stamp out the claims culture straight away though.

For repeat offenders , yes. But I fail to see how it would stop people exagerating real accidents for once off cash or making insane claims their first time

You also have to remember most of these fraudsters have no shame and nothing to lose

Jurgen The German

While the below shows how much of a flip flopping hack Weston is, its a welcome development. While it's only a small step, if the opportunities and avenues to claim are reduced then of course the actual number of claims will also reduce. Baby steps but steps in the right direction.

/www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/charlie-weston-at-last-legal-insurance-changes-will-see-people-accept-responsibility-for-their-actions-38833042.html

reg114

Jurgen The German wrote: »

While the below shows how much of a flip flopping hack Weston is, its a welcome development. While it's only a small step, if the opportunities and avenues to claim are reduced then of course the actual number of claims will also reduce. Baby steps but steps in the right direction.

/www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/charlie-weston-at-last-legal-insurance-changes-will-see-people-accept-responsibility-for-their-actions-38833042.html

Weston to his credit has led a crusade against ambulance chasers for some time, if you followed his twitter feed you would see this.

As far as the legal profession is concerned and specifically solicitors, its no coincidence they are reviled by society for being money obsessed and self serving . Its a reputation that has been well earned for the last couple of centuries and unfortunately shows no sign of changing any time soon. I had an experience with a solicitor recently who lost the deeds of a property that was in his possession, thereby drawing out the sale of the property unnecessarily and by extension increasing the cost of the entire exercise at my expense. Such carelessness is rife within the legal profession. Solicitors do what they want then they want to and always bill you for it. Judges it seems are no less incompetent when presented with the aforementioned ambulance chasers and yet award ludicrous amounts of money for fake injuries , instead of applying commonsense and withering criticism of the plaintiff. The entire legal system in this country is broken and its us who are the idiots for tolerating it.

Ardillaun

Reg114, in Canada wills and house purchases have been low drama events for me. My solicitor sent the documents of a relative who died intestate because of a technicality to the local courthouse to be sorted out and the judge, who hates delays in his court, took all of one week to send the completed documents back to us. I guess one reason why property law is simpler is because we have much less history but any legal issues I’ve had have been dealt with quickly, correctly and inexpensively.

Must say I find the tenor of this debate much more to my liking than the one on p.ie.

Kermit.de.frog

Poor girl touched a light bulb.

That will be €6,500

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/girl-awarded-6-500-after-burning-hand-by-touching-light-blub-in-hotel-1.4150220?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fdistrict-court%2Fgirl-awarded-6-500-after-burning-hand-by-touching-light-blub-in-hotel-1.4150220

Regardless of how these payouts are coming about whether through settlements or court direction something needs to done.

Patrick2010

Paywall on most IT articles these days. Whats the jist of this payout?

Kermit.de.frog

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Paywall on most IT articles these days. Whats the jist of this payout?

Girl touched light bulb, sued through her parents, got 6,500.

No, really.

easypazz

Patrick2010 wrote: »

Paywall on most IT articles these days. Whats the jist of this payout?

I could only read first few lines but it sounds like there was a lamp (in the room or lobby or bar, who knows)

She touched it and burned her fingers, given it ONLY €6500 the burns must have been superficial and she made a full recovery almost immediately with perhaps a visit or 2 to A and E.

Its absolutely disgraceful people are getting money for trivial accidents that when they happen at home they just get on with it.

James Brown

The hotel should report the mother for endangering the child....
Can the Judges not laugh such things out? Do they have to entertain such things? I thought they had some sway? They certainly do in other areas.