sonic85 wrote: » What's the best way of highlighting this crap? Letter or email to the local TD?
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » You simply can't make that determination. If you want to pursue doctors who give spurious diagnoses I'm all for it, but you can't make a decision on a case based on what seems right to you. Nice try at dodging it, but the issue would be we'd see that while legal fees might be a driving factor there are other factors at play. This is why the insurance industry is more than happy to play into the mindless hype. It looks like ye will be getting away with it too, as it's going to be years before they are forced to show what is making up their premiums. I'll certainly concede you're giving it some balance there. Edit: You can safely insert 'insurance industry' for 'you' in many cases above, it wasn't meant to sound personal, except where it was! :pac:
Rod Munch wrote: » People seem to think that just because I sometimes defend the industry that I think they are blameless for the mess we are now in but that's not the case. I have been and will continue to be critical of what I see as being the poor points but I will also 100% refute stuff that I know to be untrue. The problem is that a lot of what I know is anecdotal so its very easy for people to poo poo it. I think though that this thread, and a lot of the threads in the insurance forum show that people are now more in tune and that its not simply a case of the big bad insurance industry hauling the masses over the coals for shyts and giggles.
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » Making submissions to the various working groups. It'll mean looking into it in a bit more depth that a few newspaper articles and a some boards.ie threads. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending but this is a complex issue with various points of view, some that while hard to agree with aren't necessarily wrong. Someone writing a letter on the basis of one or two mildly amusing cases that sold newspapers will rightly be ignored, or unfortunately, possibly not.
Harry Palmr wrote: » I'd be interested to know what the cost point is that the insurers decide to simply follow the claimant to observe the extent of their supposed incapacity. If 10k is the difference here is that enough to send out an observer for a few days? I'd take great satisfaction in filming someone swinging their kids around while suffering fake whiplash.
Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: » Save your opprobrium. She'll plough the €20k back into the economy in one way or another.
Arcade_Tryer wrote: » It's pointless blaming the people making these claims. They are merely exploiting the system along with the legal and insurance industries. Why should the ordinary person not get a share of the spoils? Why should the ordinary person hold themselves to a higher moral and ethical standard than the legal and insurance industries, who are taking a much larger share of the proceeds?
Glenster wrote: » I suppose when you see someone being attacked you join in do you?
Arcade_Tryer wrote: » No. But another person might. Do you blame the person who joins in and does a small bit of damage more than the main attackers who orchestrate and carry out the attack?
Glenster wrote: » Not more.
But two wrongs dont make a right.
sonic85 wrote: » Not trying to be smart here but how many normal working class joes have the time or resources to do what you suggest? Or are you basically suggesting that nothing can be done and to bend over and keep taking this sh!t? What's complex about somebody banging their knee on a table leg and getting 20k for it? Like most other people my insurance has gone to hell in the last couple of years and I dont know how much more I can take. Where's the cut off point going to be? Why should a persons genuine concerns be ignored?
Rod Munch wrote: » I've worked in insurance for a number of years and have posted extensively about it across a few forums and did an AMA about it. I have been called an insurance industry apologist by a number of people. I have been called a liar by a number of people when I have posted about the claims culture in Ireland and how that is the primary driver of increased insurance premiums. It is with a certain level of smugness that stuff like this vindicates what I have been saying for the last couple of years. The whole thing is rotten, from the thieves that make the fraudulent claims (thats what they are) to the parasitic solicitors that represent them (not all of them are leeches but when what they get paid is directly effected by what their client are awarded then there is little reason to think that many of them have any morals) to the incompetent judges making the awards, its little wonder that premiums have rocketed. I do however feel that things are somewhat turning a corner. There have been a few high profile claims thrown out recently, the young fella that cycled into the jeep and a couple of others where the judge ruled against the claimant because there was no way that the low impact of the collision could have caused the injuries they were saying they had. Its a start but there is still a huge way to go. To give you a real world example. A case came across my desk recently where our policy holder bumped into the back of a third party. They were stopped in traffic so clearly there couldn't be much of an impact and the total repair costs for both cars was around €450 for a bit of buffing. The third party immediately began claiming neck pain, sent in his solicitors letter etc. Its as plain as the nose on my face that there are no injuries and its a complete try on. The claims dept know the claimant is lying however whiplash claims are notoriously difficult to defend against so they offered a settlement of €7500 - €10,000 plus costs to make him go away. His solicitor rejected the offer outright and told the claims department that the minimum they will consider is €20,000 plus costs. Our claims department rightly told him to piss off so now its being investigated. People often lament insurers settling "on the steps" rather than defending the claim but there is good reasons for it. To date, we have spent over €5000 between assessors fees, medical assessor fees and investigator fees. Thats without going to court. So you see its often the cheapest option to give the try on a few quid to go away rather than try and defend in full and potentially end up in the high court paying multiples of what they could spend by settling quickly. I read through the case file and without giving details I am confident that when this goes to court the case will be thrown out but when its in the hands of a judge you never can tell. Funnily people were giving jambon man grief for claiming yesterday. Tbh he was right, now the award of €20k was ridiculous however he was slandered and he deserved reparation for that, not near what he got but he would be entitled to something. What needs to happen sooner rather than later is for caps to be introduced. The very top of the list should be a cap on legal fees. The injuries board was set up specifically, specifically to try and cut out the legal system from insurance claims due to the length of time cases were taking to be heard and the costs associated yet around 90% of injuries board cases are involving people represented by solicitors. I guarantee that if the legal fees available for whiplash / soft tissue fees were capped at €500 per case we would see a massive drop in both the number of cases and the number of cases that make it to courts. Solicitors fees are in the region of 20% to 30% of the settlement amount so for the €20k claim in the OP their representative likely got €5000 to €6000 for it, talk about money for old rope! Unproveable injuries such as the one in the OP should be capped at a max of €5000. There should be penalties, actual enforceable penalties for those that are found to be making false claims. Minimum fines of €1000 to €5000 should be given to those that deliberately try and defraud an insurer. I'd love to see a system whereby people that report fraudsters get rewarded. Say 20% off their premium if the claim being made is found to fraudulent. Aside from the last thing these are relatively simple measures to implement and I have no doubt that they would save millions each year. Ultimately though the claims environment rests with the public, there is little accountability anymore and we live in a world where recklessness, stupidity and out right lying reaps massive rewards. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the potential of receiving a nice fat compo cheque turns otherwise stand up people into absolute bastards.
Rod Munch wrote: » I've worked in insurance for a number of years and have posted extensively about it across a few forums and did an AMA about it. I have been called an insurance industry apologist by a number of people. I have been called a liar by a number of people when I have posted about the claims culture in Ireland and how that is the primary driver of increased insurance premiums.It is with a certain level of smugness that stuff like this vindicates what I have been saying for the last couple of years. The whole thing is rotten, from the thieves that make the fraudulent claims (thats what they are) to the parasitic solicitors that represent them (not all of them are leeches but when what they get paid is directly effected by what their client are awarded then there is little reason to think that many of them have any morals) to the incompetent judges making the awards, its little wonder that premiums have rocketed. I do however feel that things are somewhat turning a corner. There have been a few high profile claims thrown out recently, the young fella that cycled into the jeep and a couple of others where the judge ruled against the claimant because there was no way that the low impact of the collision could have caused the injuries they were saying they had. Its a start but there is still a huge way to go. To give you a real world example. A case came across my desk recently where our policy holder bumped into the back of a third party. They were stopped in traffic so clearly there couldn't be much of an impact and the total repair costs for both cars was around €450 for a bit of buffing. The third party immediately began claiming neck pain, sent in his solicitors letter etc. Its as plain as the nose on my face that there are no injuries and its a complete try on. The claims dept know the claimant is lying however whiplash claims are notoriously difficult to defend against so they offered a settlement of €7500 - €10,000 plus costs to make him go away. His solicitor rejected the offer outright and told the claims department that the minimum they will consider is €20,000 plus costs. Our claims department rightly told him to piss off so now its being investigated. People often lament insurers settling "on the steps" rather than defending the claim but there is good reasons for it. To date, we have spent over €5000 between assessors fees, medical assessor fees and investigator fees. Thats without going to court. So you see its often the cheapest option to give the try on a few quid to go away rather than try and defend in full and potentially end up in the high court paying multiples of what they could spend by settling quickly. I read through the case file and without giving details I am confident that when this goes to court the case will be thrown out but when its in the hands of a judge you never can tell. Funnily people were giving jambon man grief for claiming yesterday. Tbh he was right, now the award of €20k was ridiculous however he was slandered and he deserved reparation for that, not near what he got but he would be entitled to something. What needs to happen sooner rather than later is for caps to be introduced. The very top of the list should be a cap on legal fees. The injuries board was set up specifically, specifically to try and cut out the legal system from insurance claims due to the length of time cases were taking to be heard and the costs associated yet around 90% of injuries board cases are involving people represented by solicitors. I guarantee that if the legal fees available for whiplash / soft tissue fees were capped at €500 per case we would see a massive drop in both the number of cases and the number of cases that make it to courts. Solicitors fees are in the region of 20% to 30% of the settlement amount so for the €20k claim in the OP their representative likely got €5000 to €6000 for it, talk about money for old rope! Unproveable injuries such as the one in the OP should be capped at a max of €5000. There should be penalties, actual enforceable penalties for those that are found to be making false claims. Minimum fines of €1000 to €5000 should be given to those that deliberately try and defraud an insurer. I'd love to see a system whereby people that report fraudsters get rewarded. Say 20% off their premium if the claim being made is found to fraudulent. Aside from the last thing these are relatively simple measures to implement and I have no doubt that they would save millions each year. Ultimately though the claims environment rests with the public, there is little accountability anymore and we live in a world where recklessness, stupidity and out right lying reaps massive rewards. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the potential of receiving a nice fat compo cheque turns otherwise stand up people into absolute bastards.
the.red.baron wrote: » When will people just cop on an realise that the whole legal system is just setup to maximize the amount of work there is for the legal system and to price the little guy out of getting justice. Appeal appeal appeal, it's all billable hours, off to the high court, kaaaaachiiiing If a judge gives out a rubbish ruling in a lower court then can you afford to not appeal it?
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » This isn't 20K for banging a knee. This is a legal case and a discussion on damages. It's nuanced but it's actually not difficult to understand, head over to Legal Discussions and pose a question people will go through negligence with you.
Triangle wrote: » I have to disagree with your viewpoint Samuel. Life isn't black and white and legal definitions do not always take the complexity of life into context. A lot of 'living' is based upon the idea of wisdom and intelligence - Legal arguments do not take this into consideration in all of their decisions. The Facts do NOT always speak for themselves! When sitting at a table, it's base common sense to understand that something holds the table top up. It's also base common sense to understand that stepping off a curb means you need to take a step down. Twisting your ankle while stepping off a perfectly good curb does not mean you deserve a payment! If the table was not defective (and there was no mention of it in the report and it was mentioned it was a design used all over the world) then there should be no cause for a payout - she was just clumsy it seems. Legal arguments need to take a wider view of decisions made, not a narrow viewpoint.
HeidiHeidi wrote: » Further to this, I have to wonder when the strict legal angle of a case like this became so divorced from common sense? I can see - but not understand - why she may have been entitled to the award because of the way the law has been written and has evolved over the years - but as a layman looking on at the bare facts (and I also appreciate that we're only going on what the press has reported, which in itself is a whole other day's work!) I find it incredible that there is no element of "is this reasonable" applied to these judgements.
riffmongous wrote: » Could we not get like a megathread for all these compo posts? I really couldn't care less anymore
Eoin247 wrote: » Maybe some day you'll feel differently if you put all your money into a restaurant and get sued for 20k because somebody didn't realize that tables don't float in mid-air?
BPKS wrote: » The awards made by some judges probably reflects these judges sentiments that solicitors, who lost their shirts through poor investments in property and shares during the boom, need to be helped back on their feet. Award €20k/€30k/€40k/€50k for a bit of whiplash, a bruised leg, a one inch scar on the thumb, falling between beds while jumping on the beds in a hotel and so on and so on and the judges know their mate will get 25% of the award. The judges know the solicitors/barristers, the solicitors/barristers know the judges. The often socialise together. Their children and grandchildren go the school together and play rugby together. They meet each other at the theatre. They are members of the same golf clubs I'll scratch your back old chum, see you in the 19th hole.
