€64k for a sore bum? I'm off to Dunnes for some "shopping"!

Special Circumstances · 08-07-2016 05:17AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And the good Mr SC believes that every single claim is genuine and everyone in a 5 km/h car park shunt should immediately have €20k forced into their hand whilst still on the scene of the accident to deal with their horrific, life changing, devastating injuries. Anyone actually injured, you'd give them a million I bet. I can misrepresent and hyperbole with the best, so don't even start.

Now now doc, I've never said any particular figure was automatically right. I've said a figure is pretty much automatically wrong in Ireland though.

That figure is the €600 definite absolute sum total of compensation received (definitely nothing else, no cash or other medical treatments or medications or other benefits that you pay dearly for in Ireland... ... ) in Germany for soft tissue back/neck injuries. The one you are on record as being a big fan of.

Although maybe you'd prefer me to use inverted commas around back/neck injuries, you're a bit of a sceptic when it comes to those - htfu, walk it off like!

Special Circumstances · 08-07-2016 05:31AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Me and SC go way back. Bit of an in joke at this stage. We have different ideas what constitutes an injury and what a fair level of payout is.

At least we can keep it civil though!

The Bishop Basher · 08-07-2016 06:02AM

hullaballoo wrote: »

Also, it strikes me that a lot of people are happy to state that they'd never sue of they had a fall but I guarantee none of them have suffered the consequences of a serious injury.

That's just not true.

For many of us, claiming this kind of compensation is simply unethical. We live by that too. My mother slipped on water in Dunnes about 10 years ago. She was OK and just needed physio to recover but she didn't claim as she saw it as an accident. She has perfectly good vision but didn't see the water on the floor.

I had a dentist overfill a tooth root leaving me numb for over a year. Could have put in a large claim but I didn't. Why ? Because **** happens sometimes. We can go looking to blame everyone else and make money or we can just accept that **** happens and get on with our lives..

My mother in law fell in Teco's last week and broke her wrist. Again, she won't claim because that's just not how she was raised..

By the same token I watched a "friend" go through a false whiplash claim some years ago. He got 30k in the end. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him. He just saw it as easy money. We drifted apart largely due to this. I couldn't stomach it.

So point is, there are many of us who were just brought up differently. For us, claiming anything other then medical costs or out of work costs is just greed. From reading these threads I see we're in the minority but you can't put a price on a clear concience and a good nights sleep and so I won't be putting a claim in for anything any time soon. I'll have to keep paying indirectly for everyone else's greed though which is a tad sickening.

08-07-2016 06:16AM

Swanner wrote: »

By the same token I watched a "friend" go through a false whiplash claim some years ago. He got 30k in the end. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him. He just saw it as easy money. We drifted apart largely due to this. I couldn't stomach it.

Did you report this fraud, or did you accept it?

Do you not get the irony, you tolerating serious fraud and turning a blind eye to the behaviour that sees us all pay more insurance for the wrong reasons (unlike legitimate claims) and then giving it the whole "but we were raised well unlike the claimant in this case"?

The Bishop Basher · 08-07-2016 07:04AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you not get the irony, you tolerating serious fraud and turning a blind eye to the behaviour that sees us all pay more insurance for the wrong reasons (unlike legitimate claims) and then giving it the whole "but we were raised well unlike the claimant in this case"?

I get the irony but he was a very close mate at the time and I'm not in the habit of reporting mates for their transgressions. If I was I probably wouldn't have many friends.

I took what I felt was appropriate action at the time and removed them from my life as their way of viewing the world was clearly at odds with mine. No biggy. Just like slipping on your arse, **** happens. I took action and moved on.

08-07-2016 07:26AM

Swanner wrote: »

I took what I felt was appropriate action at the time and removed them from my life as their way of viewing the world was clearly at odds with mine. No biggy. Just like slipping on your arse, **** happens. I took action and moved on.

Ah no no, in fairness, turning a blind eye to serious fraud is not "just like" suffering an injury due to the negligence of another.

And you didn't take action...that's kinda the problem. Do you think losing one friend is the appropriate penalty for serious insurance fraud?

Liam McPoyle · 08-07-2016 07:47AM

We live in a compensation culture.

People still see insurance fraud as victimless crime.

I'm sure this lady suffered some pain afterwards, I've had some heavy falls myself over the years but after a couple of months its completely gone

Absolutely Dunne's owed her a duty of care by ensuring that there were no hazards on the floor and if she suffered loss of earnings and a reduction in quality of life because of this then she is 100% entitled to compensation.

If however someone is able to continue their day to day life never mind continue "high intensity" dancing then how anyone can say its anything but an exaggerated try on is beyond me.

The correct award would have been cover for loss of earnings, all medical related expenses and throw in a couple of grand for the bruising. An absolute limit of €15,000 would have been acceptable, €64,000 is disgusting.

The only thing it will serve to do is highlight to people how easy it is to get compensation for sweet fcuk all.

The case involving the Lady in Dublin zoo was mentioned.

Now that's a case that I'd have no major issue with the level of payout.

She suffered a severe injury and will likely have life long ramifications because of it.

But €64,000 for what amounts to a bit of bruising?

Joke.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 08-07-2016 07:53AM

Insurers appear to have being defending this case since 2008 on the basis they felt they had a strong case with hard evidence. As a result, they have incurred huge legal costs. By evidence, I don't mean that the event didn't happen, but the severity has to be questioned.

Is it any wonder that they sometimes roll over and settle claims easily. If they had this much evidence and lost, then what chance have they with other cases. Then that practice feeds a system where chancers will give it a go. Award levels need to be tackled

The Bishop Basher · 08-07-2016 07:55AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah no no, in fairness, turning a blind eye to serious fraud is not "just like" suffering an injury due to the negligence of another.

And you didn't take action...that's kinda the problem. Do you think losing one friend is the appropriate penalty for serious insurance fraud?

Look. You're obviously happy enough reporting friends to the relevant authorities when they do something wrong. I'm not. That's ok. We think differently.

I pick my battles and if I was to report every friend for every transgression I'd be quite lonely I imagine.

Out of interest though, where do you draw the line ? Do you report family as well ? Would you report your kids if they were breaking the law ?

08-07-2016 08:08AM

Swanner wrote: »

Look. You're obviously happy enough reporting friends to the relevant authorities when they do something wrong. I'm not. That's ok. We think differently.

No no, you have set your character against those like the woman in the OP, so obviously it is up for scrutiny.

You tolerate serious fraud and feel it's not worth reporting. Could you set out exactly why what she has done in bringing a legitimate claim is worse than indifference to serious fraud?

08-07-2016 08:10AM

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

The correct award would have been cover for loss of earnings, all medical related expenses and throw in a couple of grand for the bruising. An absolute limit of €15,000 would have been acceptable, €64,000 is disgusting.

...
But €64,000 for what amounts to a bit of bruising?

Joke.

That makes no sense.

You say she can get her loss of earnings. But that should be limited? Why?

Could you set out how much of the 64k was due to specials and how much to general in this case? Surely it's hard to say "joke" without that breakdown anyway. And could you quote the medical report that summed up her injury as "a bit of bruising". It sounds completely made up. And in fairness, you are entitled to make up stuff...but it would be a bit odd to come to very strong opinions like "disgusting" on the basis of your own made up conclusions, no?

Liam McPoyle · 08-07-2016 08:53AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That makes no sense.

You say she can get her loss of earnings. But that should be limited? Why?

Could you set out how much of the 64k was due to specials and how much to general in this case? Surely it's hard to say "joke" without that breakdown anyway. And could you quote the medical report that summed up her injury as "a bit of bruising". It sounds completely made up. And in fairness, you are entitled to make up stuff...but it would be a bit odd to come to very strong opinions like "disgusting" on the basis of your own made up conclusions, no?

I didn't say her loss of earnings should be limited?

What ever loss of earnings she suffered as a result should be compensated.

She however was able to perform vigorous exercise and activities that someone with a bad back or neck would struggle to do.

What medical report's were published?

Surely if the plaintiff had suffered ACTUAL injuries then her medical team would have provided details of the injuries she suffered? Given that Dunne's were vigoulrously defending the claim then obviously her legal team would have had to submit reports to prove that Dunne's were defending the indefensible.

The fact is there was no medical evidence mentioned other than a doctor saying she has back pain, hey i have back pain too! See how easy it is?

So that, coupled with her post incident activities would lead one to reasonablly assume that he "injuries" are not at all debilitating.

Therefore it is an exaggerated try on.

Therefore €64,000 is a disgusting sum to award when no factual evidence / proof is supplied.

That's why whiplash claims are so hard to defend against.

You cannot prove that it exists however you cannot prove it doesn't exist either.

All a plaintiff needs to do is prove an incident occurred and that the insured is at fault then they will get paid.

The Bishop Basher · 08-07-2016 09:00AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No no, you have set your character against those like the woman in the OP, so obviously it is up for scrutiny.

You tolerate serious fraud and feel it's not worth reporting. Could you set out exactly why what she has done in bringing a legitimate claim is worse than indifference to serious fraud?

Scrutinise away. I live in the real world. I make the best decisions I can at any given time. Sometimes there are contradictions so I go with the less wrong or at least whatever feels less wrong at the time.

You of course are free to judge those decisions and I'm free to ignore your judgments. See how this works ?

Now, can you answer my question ? Where do you draw the line ? Do you report your family to the authorities when you see them do something wrong ?

kupus · 08-07-2016 09:05AM

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

The upside of high awards from accidents is that businesses are given a powerful incentive to be damn careful about the health and safety of their staff, customers and the general public which can only be a good thing.

The misplaced sympathy for a company like Dunnes is pretty laughable.

And the downside of this victim award industry is that businesses are going out of business because of high insurance costs which means less choice for YOU.

If I had a tinfoil hat and put it on, I would say there is a concerted effort to drive all small businesses into the ground in favour of other interests.

But that can't happen shure it's Ireland the best lil country to do business in.....
(If your a big fooking tax dodging multinational)

Special Circumstances · 08-07-2016 09:10AM

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

That's why whiplash claims are so hard to defend against.

You cannot prove that it exists however you cannot prove it doesn't exist either.

All a plaintiff needs to do is prove an incident occurred and that the insured is at fault then they will get paid.

I suppose people could just start driving like responsible adults. Or insurance companies could place much higher emphasis on drivers with long clean records rather than the highest emphasis being on engine size (2.0 pertol oh lord jesus and all the saints!!) 10 year old (lethal) cars, 15 year old (uninsurable WMD)...

But hey, you guys keep doing what yer doing, adamant that ye are right... and moaning every week that ye aren't making enough money.

Unless of course, the number of claims are actually falling and ye are painting us all as scammers and spoofers despite it being your poor investments, poor business strategies and more onerous reserve requirements that ye want us to cough up for.

08-07-2016 09:57AM

Swanner wrote: »

Now, can you answer my question ? Where do you draw the line ? Do you report your family to the authorities when you see them do something wrong ?

This is not a thread about me at all. You have questioned the ethics of someone who takes a claim based on an injury caused by another's negligence, and compared that with how you have reacted. You also disclosed that you choose not to report serious insurance fraud. You chose to bring character into it and for some reason put yourself on a pedestal...I am entitled to question the comparison you made.

08-07-2016 10:00AM

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

I didn't say her loss of earnings should be limited?

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

The correct award would have been cover for loss of earnings, all medical related expenses and throw in a couple of grand for the bruising. An absolute limit of €15,000 would have been acceptable, €64,000 is disgusting...

Um.

Not sure what to say really...or if any comment is needed at all...

The Bishop Basher · 08-07-2016 10:15AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is not a thread about me at all

Well either your posts are riddled with hypocrisy or your a very unpopular and pedantic family member that everyone avoids for fear of being grassed on.. It has to be one or the other..

But I wouldn't want to admit to one of them either so I'll be nice and stop asking you...

kupus · 08-07-2016 10:23AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Um.

Not sure what to say really...or if any comment is needed at all...

what part of the 64,000 euro question do you not understand?

A girl dances for a living yet she gets compo for a bad back?

But I'm sure the judge knows everything. As you yourself say they are the ones with the facts right in front of them.

08-07-2016 10:39AM

Swanner wrote: »

Well either your posts are riddled with hypocrisy or your a very unpopular and pedantic family member that everyone avoids for fear of being grassed on.. It has to be one or the other..

But I wouldn't want to admit to one of them either so I'll be nice and stop asking you...

You said you don't report serious insurance fraud, which is relevant on a thread about insurance. I see now you have lost it and are just trolling with references to my popularity in my family. Good man.

08-07-2016 10:41AM

kupus wrote: »

what part of the 64,000 euro question do you not understand?

A girl dances for a living yet she gets compo for a bad back?

They are not exclusive. A person can be injured and continue to do a job, in pain, at a reduced ability, earning less and so on.

The point is a poster said she should recoup for all loss of earnings. And also said the amount should be capped. That's a contradictory statement, unless he is not sure about the issue and is saying general damages should be capped and specials unlimited.

ford2600 · 08-07-2016 10:57AM

The Plaintiff in this matter, probably didn't have a choice but run case; Dunnes tend to fight everything. So her only other choice would have been to withdraw case.

On award, it's basically a gamble; this week in Dublin there was three judges hearing PI claims with varying tendencies on liability/quantum.

My best guess on manhole cover case, given that liability was not an issue, was that Dublin Zoo were using a non standard cover. I'd be very surprised if their Insurer's would have withdrawn liability as an issue without expert advice that cover was not in compliance with relevant standards/unsuitable/excessively worn.

Liam McPoyle · 08-07-2016 11:10AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They are not exclusive. A person can be injured and continue to do a job, in pain, at a reduced ability, earning less and so on.

The point is a poster said she should recoup for all loss of earnings. And also said the amount should be capped. That's a contradictory statement, unless he is not sure about the issue and is saying general damages should be capped and specials unlimited.

Obviously her full loss of earnings should be compensated.

She is a singer / dancer that nobody has ever heard of, how much do you think she earns?

Notwithstanding the fact that She has been able to continue her work unencumbered and as well as carry out other strenuous activities such as bowling and boxing.

I'm surmising that her loss of earnings amounted to SFA.

08-07-2016 11:16AM

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Obviously her full loss of earnings should be compensated.

She is a singer / dancer that nobody has ever heard of, how much do you think she earns?

Notwithstanding the fact that She has been able to continue her work unencumbered and as well as carry out other strenuous activities such as bowling and boxing.

I'm surmising that her loss of earnings amounted to SFA.

But surely someone should be compensated when said injuries greatly impact their standard of living, which seems to be the case here? I mean, the judge obviously wasn't pulling a figure out of their arse.

08-07-2016 11:20AM

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Obviously her full loss of earnings should be compensated.

But...do you understand that the award here includes loss of earnings? The €64,000 is for pain and suffering, for losses to date, for future losses etc.? To analyse what you claim is disgusting, we would really need to know the split between general damages and specials. I have no idea what she earns, say its €300 a week and that's now €200 a week, that's 5k per annum. In just 6 years that loss alone would account for half the award. Add to that the loss of amenity, and of course the generals, and I can see how the figure is not a joke or disgusting at all.

The Bishop Basher · 08-07-2016 11:22AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You said you don't report serious insurance fraud

I said I didn't report a close friend but then you already knew that.

All a bit too pedantic here for me. I'm out...

Bandana boy · 08-07-2016 11:25AM

I suspect some crying about spilled milk in Dunne's right now

Summer wind · 08-07-2016 11:29AM

Nobody with a bad back could do high energy dance routines. The report does not say she was performing her high energy dance routines with a reduced ability. She also could do social activities such as bowling and boxing. She was basically living her life as a perfectly normal fully functioning woman. The only thing she should have been diagnosed with is a brass neck.

Liam McPoyle · 08-07-2016 12:05PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But surely someone should be compensated when said injuries greatly impact their standard of living, which seems to be the case here? I mean, the judge obviously wasn't pulling a figure out of their arse.

How has it impacted her though never mind greatly impacted?

She has been able to continue performing.

She has been able to continue partaking in activities that put strain on ones back, neck and shoulders.

Where is the reduction in the standard of living?

08-07-2016 12:59PM

Summer wind wrote: »

Nobody with a bad back could do high energy dance routines. The report does not say she was performing her high energy dance routines with a reduced ability.

You should contact the insurance company and tell them you may have something that their highly paid team of barristers, solicitors and medical experts missed. You just say it's impossible, and this is corroborated by something that was not contained in the newspaper report.

€64k for a sore bum? I'm off to Dunnes for some "shopping"!

Comments