RTE finally calls out compo culture

El Gato De Negocios

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I often wonder do insurance companies pay out these claims just so they can have an easy life and not have to deal with these people.

Not necessarily travellers but in alot of cases, a nominal amount will be paid out for what are known as "nuisance" claims. This would happen where there has been an accident eg innocent person tipped a third parties car. Rather than spend a ball of money defending these claims and knowing on the balance of probability they will likely end up having to pay more if it got to court, they (insurers) will throw the claimant a couple of grand to piss off. I feel sorry for drivers that get caught up with stuff like this but its for the greater good. If insurers fought every single claim then their losses would be an awful lot more than they are.

JimmyVik

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't think I've ever had a "bad" tin of beans.

Do you know where I can get one. Could do with a few grand

Eggs For Dinner

Meeoow wrote: »

The main losers are ourselves who pay insurance premiums. Insurance is a big pot we all pay into, then when there's a claim, it is paid out of that pot. Insurance companies put all premiums up to reflect claims. Their profits are not affected.

That's the way insurance operates and we need insurers to make profit. Without it they leave the Irish market or go bust. Neither is good for the policyholder. Acceptable claim costs + reasonable profit = affordable premiums

freshpopcorn

Had a nose on Facebook. The guy in the pic is after using his RTÉ picture as his profile pic.

colm_mcm

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Had a nose on Facebook. The guy in the pic is after using his RTÉ picture as his profile pic.

Or maybe RTE are using his profile pic?
Maybe he can put a claim in

freshpopcorn

colm_mcm wrote: »

Or maybe RTE are using his profile pic?
Maybe he can put a claim in

Well it was updated Yesterday after the court.

AutoTuning

To be fair, RTE have done a few decent Prime Time pieces on the high insurance costs and huge, by comparison to elsewhere in Europe, payouts.

We need to tackle it, but we won’t because there’s been zero commercial pressure put on by the insurers and the legal costs of defending cases for claims seem higher than is worth pursuing.

The Troika pointed out that our legal costs were way too high, so we focused on anything else instead.

PatrickSmithUS

Gatling wrote: »

Imagine claiming a car rolled over on its roof and there is zero damage to the car or occupants ,
It was like another case where a car involving a similar family had crashed into a stone bridge ,car wrote off injuries to all occupants ,
Only for expert's to point out the tyres were flat and had moss and grass growing on them,they also found evidence the car was towed to the location and pushed into position to make it look like it hit the bridge ,

There was one settled today for €4.7m where a young girl sued her own father because he crashed their family car by driving it the wrong way up a dual carriageway when she was a baby and she sustained a brain injury.

El Gato De Negocios

PatrickSmithUS wrote: »

There was one settled today for €4.7m where a young girl sued her own father because he crashed their family car by driving it the wrong way up a dual carriageway when she was a baby and she sustained a brain injury.

Cases like this, I have no issue with the level of compensation paid. The poor unfortunate child involved in the case will require lifelong care and will probably never be able to live independently. Claims for catastrophic injuries, particularly concerning minors have to factor in future care costs, loss of opportunity of education, employment and a "life" for the injured party. I can guarantee you that if any parent had the choice of €4.7m or their child returning to health, they would pick the latter most likely every single time.

boombang

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Had a nose on Facebook. The guy in the pic is after using his RTÉ picture as his profile pic.

Sums up the brazen nature of that section of society. They have no shame and they and those around them exploit that fully.

What's so frustrating is that so many soft-headed types see them as the victim. I'd love to place a halting site next to each Kitty Holland 'liberal' (sic) type to provide them with an education of who is the victim.

malinheader

I suppose something had to be done after 20 years of fraudulent claims. But then again what real justice will there be.
Will they pay it back, they will my arse.

deandean

The judge in the case quoted by the OP looks to have a good record of calling out scam claims and throwing them out. A search of her name throws up several. I would dearly love to see more judges like her.

What I don't understand is how they managed to let it get as far as court. :rolleyes:

Surely if you're scamming the system, the best thing to do is take the first offer made, grab the cash, and run as far away as you can, lest anyone gets suspicious?


That said, I had an RTA before and spoke to a solicitor (as the insurance company were being -seemingly deliberately- awkward to deal with). One of the first things I was asked was had I ever had a personal injury claim before. I presume this is surely asked of everyone, to weed out the scammers? But obviously not.

How do bad beans result in a personal injury claim, out of curiosity? Is it that he ate them and got the runs or something?

The Continental Op

Maybe the guys should buy some lucky heather?

Eggs For Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

How do bad beans result in a personal injury claim, out of curiosity? Is it that he ate them and got the runs or something?

Literally, yes.

Nodster

Wonder if he ever had bad eggs for dinner?

Eggs For Dinner

deandean wrote: »

The judge in the case quoted by the OP looks to have a good record of calling out scam claims and throwing them out. A search of her name throws up several. I would dearly love to see more judges like her.

Therein lies the problem. An insurer thinking of bringing a case to court needs to make that decision at least 9 months before it will be heard. They have no idea whether they will draw this judge or one known to be soft on claimants. Often wiser to settle early

lawrencesummers

deandean wrote: »

The judge in the case quoted by the OP looks to have a good record of calling out scam claims and throwing them out. A search of her name throws up several. I would dearly love to see more judges like her.

More judges making the same decision???
Imagine that something like the law was applied consistently!!!
What an outrageous idea.

Let’s not forget either that judges and lawyers are two sides of the same coin. If these cases don’t yield positive results for the clients then the solicitors don’t get paid, and judges and solicitors are essentially former work colleagues, friends, relatives and drinking buddies.

Then if these cases don’t yield positive results these cases won’t be taken and that’s judges essentially doing themselves out of work.

Turkeys have never voted for Christmas.

For Forks Sake

The Continental Op wrote: »

Maybe the guys should buy some lucky heather?

That'd probably poison them or something...time for another claim

irishproduce

Who is their solicitor who takes the claims in for them?

El Gato De Negocios

irishproduce wrote: »

Who is their solicitor who takes the claims in for them?

IMO they should be named and shamed. The legal team for the defence / insurer is almost always named in the papers but never for the prosecution / claimant.

lawrencesummers

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

IMO they should be named and shamed. The legal team for the defence / insurer is almost always named in the papers but never for the prosecution / claimant.

That’s basically free advertising.

El Gato De Negocios

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s basically free advertising.

Its not really, its not difficult to Google and find solicitors that will take on PI claims however for alot of them its only a supplementary part of their business. Being connected with scumbags and dodgy claims would raise ethical questions for me and I would absolutely shy away from using one that was known for such. The reality is that its the same solicitors representing the same scumbags all the time. Lie down with dogs and all that.

BattleCorp

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

IMO they should be named and shamed. The legal team for the defence / insurer is almost always named in the papers but never for the prosecution / claimant.

How does the solicitor know that it is a dodgy claim? All the solicitor has to go on is what the client tells them.

Eggs For Dinner

BattleCorp wrote: »

How does the solicitor know that it is a dodgy claim? All the solicitor has to go on is what the client tells them.

Solicitors & barristers are well educated and (mostly) intelligent people. They spend their time analysing facts put in front of them and hearing cases dissected in court.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's most likely a duck. If there was a penalty for zealously representing an obviously frivolous claim, there would be less of it. In the vast majority of cases, they know if their client is a chancer. It's only a game of cat and mouse between them and defence solicitors and then the roles get reversed on the next case

BattleCorp

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Solicitors & barristers are well educated and (mostly) intelligent people. They spend their time analysing facts put in front of them and hearing cases dissected in court.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's most likely a duck. If there was a penalty for zealously representing an obviously frivolous claim, there would be less of it. In the vast majority of cases, they know if their client is a chancer. It's only a game of cat and mouse between them and defence solicitors and then the roles get reversed on the next case

If I'm a complete spoofer and decide to walk into a solicitors and tell him/her I was involved in a car accident a year and a half ago where someone drove into the back of me, and now I want to seek compensation, how does the solicitor know I'm a spoofer during that initial consultation?

Johnthemanager

batman_oh wrote: »

This - the legal system in this country is to blame for this and also the skum walking around with 500 convictions. If you show them that they can do this kind of thing without any fear of repercussion then why wouldn't they?

What happened Fine Gael TD Maria Bailey?

Nadda!!

Johnthemanager

Johnthemanager wrote: »

What happened Fine Gael TD Maria Bailey?

Nadda!!

apart from losing her career in politics?

Eggs For Dinner

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I'm a complete spoofer and decide to walk into a solicitors and tell him/her I was involved in a car accident a year and a half ago where someone drove into the back of me, and now I want to seek compensation, how does the solicitor know I'm a spoofer during that initial consultation?

Did I say anything about the initial consultation? The fact that you left it a year and a half should evoke a little caution from the solicitor. The solicitor will meet the client, hear their version of events and begin the process of examining the accident report, medical report and hear the other side's position. At this stage it should be fairly obvious