Personal injury claims closing Playcentres

Boggles wrote: »

Absolutely. I never suggested there wasn't.

But that data you referenced over a 9-10 year period does not go next to near explaining a 300% increase in 12 months.

If I got the increase of 300% I would assume they have to give me an offer but don't want to insure me anymore. I'm sure they did their risk assessment of the area and decided it's not worth it. I think kids also have longer time frame to claim so that increases the risk too.

We had no claims in last five years, and one for 8000 in last 10 years. We were told our insurer doesn't want to offer insurance in the sector we are in. They were London based consortium, years before you could get quotes from Quinn or similar. If I remember correctly haven't seen an offer from Irish insurer since Quinn went bust and it's increasingly harder and more expensive to find outside insurers. Best offer our usual broker could find was 100% increase and 6000 excess. In the end we did get another one which was cheaper from broker who deals with more companies in our sector but it wasn't easy.

meeeeh wrote: »

If I got the increase of 300% I would assume they have to give me an offer but don't want to insure me anymore. I'm sure they did their risk assessment of the area and decided it's not worth it. I think kids also have longer time frame to claim so that increases the risk too.

Is that statute of limitation longer for children? I'm not so sure. I imagine the payouts are probably largely for children.

But even still they didn't just come to this stark realization.

But you are spot on they didn't want to insure them for their own reasons.

So it wasn't fraud, or the legal profession or soft claims exclusively that closed this business it was the insurance companies ultimately.

Personally I don't think that should be allowed happen.

The whole industry needs to be torn apart and built back up again, that includes all the players, for me they are all as culpable as each other.

I would start with motor insurance and regulate it within an inch of it's life, how a private industry can clusterfook a "product" that is illegal not to have is pretty unique.

Boggles wrote: »

Is that statute of limitation longer for children? I'm not so sure. I imagine the payouts are probably largely for children.

But even still they didn't just come to this stark realization.

But you are spot on they didn't want to insure them for their own reasons.

So it wasn't fraud, or the legal profession or soft claims exclusively that closed this business it was the insurance companies ultimately.

Personally I don't think that should be allowed happen.

The whole industry needs to be torn apart and built back up again, that includes all the players, for me they are all as culpable as each other.

I would start with motor insurance and regulate it within an inch of it's life, how a private industry can clusterfook a "product" that is illegal not to have is pretty unique.

Well you can't force insurance companies to operate at a loss. And whew insurance constantly opertes at a loss taxpayer will end up covering the losess with another insurance levy as we do for Quinn.

I'm certainly not excusing insurance providers and I do think they get away with murder. But reforming insurance sector without reforming how claims are processed and without limiting awards will not achieve anything. They will just leave the market or go bankrupt.

meeeeh wrote: »

Well you can't force insurance companies to operate at a loss.

I never suggested you would.

But no private company has the god given right to operate at X profit and if they can't do it with a product that is illegal not to have, serious questions need to be asked.

When you hear the Industry having a moan, it's always about increased premiums and never are taking a hit on profits mentioned.

Maybe if excessive claims started hitting their profits, the culture may change.

But like has been suggested early, it's the legal industry and insurance industry that is causing this, with pretty ineffective governance stuck in the middle being lobbied to death by both.

Of course the insurance industry bang the fraud drum which gives them the excuse to squeeze the títs of the vast majority of customers who are not fraudsters.

It's pretty easy fix, there is no appetite to fix it though. We have allowed them free reign and they have made an absolute bollix of it.

beauf wrote: »

In the story I read the center had no accidents with children. Only a small one from an adult.

Is everyone's car insurance increasing because they aren't willing to spend enough to keep people safe.

What a bizarre argument.

Insurance is calculated primarily on the basis of risk, and increases in insurance are based upon a number of factors, including of course if an insurance company is paying out for more cases than previous years, and the cost of paying out for those cases is spread to everyone else who takes out insurance.

It’s the same for any business that they are required to have insurance, and there are a number of different types of insurance they can avail of, depending upon the type of business it is. For example in my own circumstances, I had to have professional indemnity insurance, and because of the type of occupation it was, my annual insurance premium wasn’t that expensive to provide up to €130k of cover if the worst were ever to happen. I was lucky the worst didn’t happen, but having insurance against it gave me peace of mind.

When it comes to providing insurance for any type of business where children are involved, the costs are much greater, precisely because there is a much greater risk of children being injured. It might never happen, but in case it does, it will be a relief to any business owner to know that they are insured, and the cost of an event which was reasonably foreseeable, actually won’t close them down -

Case in the UK, but a typical example of the type of injury that can happen to children in play centres which could have been foreseen and prevented had the owner paid due attention and care -


Accident at a play centre involving a young child £3,250

We acted for a delightful young man (aged only 3 at the time of his accident) who was playing in a soft play area in an adventure centre owned by a company in Swindon, when, he fell from the top of some padded steps, landing on some hard ground. In an attempt to break his fall, he fractured his left wrist. He had to be taken to hospital and a soft cast was applied and he had fully recovered from his injury within about 6 weeks of his accident. He also suffered some minor bruising to his face which also cleared up within a few weeks. No long term medical problems were anticipated. It was our case that:-

the duty owed to our client by the play centre was very high;

the steps in question were steep – it was likely that children might fall;

in light of this risk, the ground was too hard and this type of injury was foreseeable.

After sending a letter of claim to the owner of the play centre, their insurers made an early admission of liability which saved issuing personal injury proceedings and we were able to reach an early settlement. As our client is still a young child, the settlement needed to be approved by the Judge at Swindon County Court.

I’m not arguing that anyone can prevent anything they couldn’t reasonably have foreseen, I accept that there is a level of risk involved in allowing children to play in play centres, and people who choose to establish businesses where children are at risk on their premises, also have to accept that risk, and it is their responsibility to try and reduce that risk as much as possible so that their insurance premiums which are already very high, are lower, because of the lower risk to children.

If I don’t see the value in paying a business owner €8 an hour for the use of their facilities, I don’t see how business owners running play centres and charging a premium for their services, have any right to complain about the rising costs of doing business when they’re also being charged a premium by insurance companies who charge a premium for their services.

It’s like I said from the beginning of the thread - they’re a business, not a charity, and if they can’t afford to operate a business, then like anyone else, they have the choice to close down their business. It’s not insurance companies or the people they are offering their services to who are causing play centres to close down at all. In most compensation claims it is simply caused by the business owners own negligence, such as in this case -


Play centre worker awarded €32k for injuries suffered in slip and fall

A FORMER part time worker in a children's play centre has been awarded €32,000 for injuries she sustained after she slipped and fell on a wet floor while at work.

The award was made to 26-year-old Stacy Lennon against "Fun Fitness Ltd", Total Fitness Complex, Sandyford, Co Dublin, on October 29, 2011.

The company has since gone into liquidation.

The company's defence was struck out in May of last year and Ms Lennon had already secured a judgment in default of an appearance by the defendant.

The case was before the court for an assessment of damages only.

The accident occurred after she was told by her manager to go to a disabled toilet and turn off a power switch for a hand drier.

When walking across the floor of the toilet, Ms Lennon, of St Fintan's Park, Deansgrange, Co Dublin, slipped on liquid on the floor and landed heavily on her left hand.

She sued for damages claiming her employer had been negligent and in breach of its duty by allowing the floor in the toilet to be wet.

There was also an alleged failure to provide her with a safe and proper system of work.

In dealing with an assessment of damages, Mr Justice Anthony Barr was satisfied the liquidator and the company's insurers had been given adequate notice of the hearing date and had clearly indicated their intention not to contest the proceedings.

The judge was satisfied she developed a condition known as carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in her left wrist as a result of the accident.

CTS is where the nerve in the wrist is damaged and the main symptoms are pain numbness and tingling which may extend up the arm. It can also result in the weakening of the grip and muscle damage.

Ms Lennon, who was a student at the time of the accident, was let go shortly after the accident because she was unable to work.

The injury, the judge said, was relatively severe in that she had to change college courses.

The injury had also limited her employment options after she qualified, he said. She currently works in marketing.

She was entitled to €32,000 damages plus her costs.

Kids don't do enough exercise at school. They're bringing it in as a leaving cert subject I think, so that might help, though not if it is just the sporty kids that take it. Should be mandatory.

eagle eye wrote: »

The solution to this problem is for play centres to get a solicitor to draft up a contact that must be signed before your kid is allowed in to play.

This is what happens where I live and it seems to work fine. It doesn't stop the places being packed every weekend.

Awful

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Nor should they, if someone is injured as a direct result of the company not maintaining the equipment then fair enough, they should be liable. But someone just falling over while running or something, or while climbing somewhere they shouldn't be then the waiver should stop them getting compensation for that shouldn't it?

That wouldn't require a waiver, at least in this country.

Anyway there doesn't seem to be a problem with erroneous claims or claims at all in Play Houses.

As stated by an owner in the article she had 20,000 kids last year without incident, few bumps and cuts but no one sued.

It would appear they are a victim of the insurance industry trying to get out of the sports and activity market completely.

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

And if there was any profit to be made by 'greedy' insurers covering this market, why are they bailing out?

Probably not enough profit being made.

It's hard to tell, I mean we are not dealing with the most transparent of industries.