Insurers denying clients opportunity to contest claims.

political analyst

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/she-was-on-facebook-doing-cartwheels-but-insurer-said-it-was-cheaper-to-settle-39317511.html

7 years ago, "Lisa" was distracted by her baby crying in the back of the car and ended up hitting the vehicle in front, causing minimal damage to her own car. A few weeks later, she received a solicitor's letter about a whiplash claim, which her insurer settled for €50,000, nearly 5 years after the accident. The rise in her insurance premium meant she could no longer afford fully comprehensie cover and had to settle for 3rd party, fire and theft.

Her friend told her that the claimant - who the friend happened to be friends with on Facebook - was 'doing cartwheels in Kilkenny'.

When "Lisa" told the insurance company, she was told that it was cheaper to pay the claimant than investigate because a doctor said the claimant has a sore back.

The Law Society of Ireland recently reported that Chief Justice Frank Clarke, the chairperson of the personal injury guidance committee, is looking to create an environment in which more personal injury cases are settled out of court to help reduce the backlog.

However, Alliance for Insurance Reform director Peter Boland said,

From our perspective, we would be reluctant to see additional cases being settled out of court as part of the problem on motor cases is that three-quarters of cases are already settled privately. What that means is that defendants don't get an opportunity to stand up for themselves. We have many examples of members where they hotly contested liability but insurers insisted on settling.

As the client of an insurer, why could "Lisa" not instruct the insurer to contest the claim? Surely, it can't be much different from the interaction between a solicitor and his or her client, can it?!

Furthermore, if there's evidence that the claimant is committing fraud, why didn't "Lisa" report the matter to the Gardaí?

Under legislation introduced by Pearse Doherty, insurers would no longer be able to settle claims without notification to or without consent from customers. However, more than 6 months after the Consumer Insurance Contracts Act was passed by the Oireachtas, it hasn't yet been signed into law.

Doherty accused the Government of protecting insurers' vested interests. Why would the Government be eager to do that?

biko

Insurers aren't your friends.
If there is a problem they look for the easiest path out of it, which often is to pay off the other party and slap a penalty on you to get their money back.

Podge_irl

Lisa is not the one carrying risk so no she shouldn’t have the slightest say in the matter.

LuasSimon

Insurance companies are afraid of Pavee Point is the real reason claims are not contested

Damien360

LuasSimon wrote: »

Insurance companies are afraid of Pavee Point is the real reason claims are not contested

No it’s not. Insurance companies fear the very well off solicitors and barristers that turn a blind eye to the cash for crash racket. The judges are from that exact same group of wealthy individuals and some equally turn a blind eye. Our legal system, top-to-bottom is a mess.

Truthvader

Damien360 wrote: »

No it’s not. Insurance companies fear the very well off solicitors and barristers that turn a blind eye to the cash for crash racket. The judges are from that exact same group of wealthy individuals and some equally turn a blind eye. Our legal system, top-to-bottom is a mess.

Blame the Judges 100%. If just one Judge could man (or woman) up and give the next liar a five year sentence it would stop. The problem is there are no consequences whatsoever. Even in the tiny minority of cases where they make an order for costs against the liar it is meaningless as they are usually on the dole. Perhaps a Solicitor getting a sentence too would ram the point home

political analyst

Truthvader wrote: »

Blame the Judges 100%. If just one Judge could man (or woman) up and give the next liar a five year sentence it would stop. The problem is there are no consequences whatsoever. Even in the tiny minority of cases where they make an order for costs against the liar it is meaningless as they are usually on the dole. Perhaps a Solicitor getting a sentence too would ram the point home

The imposing of sentences on fraudsters would require convictions - and there's no chance of conviction if "Lisa", whose case I've detailed in the OP, doesn't report the matter to the Gardaí.

political analyst

biko wrote: »

Insurers aren't your friends.
If there is a problem they look for the easiest path out of it, which often is to pay off the other party and slap a penalty on you to get their money back.

Neither are solicitors but they still have to obey - within reason - their clients' instructions.

political analyst

Podge_irl wrote: »

Lisa is not the one carrying risk so no she shouldn’t have the slightest say in the matter.

But she is carrying risk, which has come to pass in her case, of an increase in the insurance premium.

McCrack

Perhaps lisa should pay attention and look where she was ****ing going when she's driving

Podge_irl

political analyst wrote: »

But she is carrying risk, which has come to pass in her case, of an increase in the insurance premium.

The risk in going to court is the difference between the settlement and any judgement with the attendant legal fees. It is a massive risk. The client's premium is likely to rise either way. The "client" bears no discernible risk (at most, it is a minuscule disaggregated risk) from going to court.

The issues with the legal system around claims are an entirely different discussion but the idea that the client should be able to instruct the insurance company to take a case to court is utter insanity.

Truthvader

political analyst wrote: »

Neither are solicitors but they still have to obey - within reason - their clients' instructions.

That is a cop out and a lie. No Solicitor is obliged to "obey" anything. There is an institutionalised lack of integrity at the heart of the legal system. They do it for the money.