nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

More ridiculous injury payouts

kildare lad

80,000 euro for cutting his arm hopping over a fence, it's no wonder insurance is so high here. If I claimed every time I got a few stitches or ended up on crutches when I was a child , I'd be a millionaire. I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing the inflated payouts we have here. The average claim pay out in Ireland is 18,000 euro while in Britain it's 5,000. There's something drastically wrong with that figure. There was a woman who owned a play centre on , she had to close down her business because her premiums went up by 1000 % in the last 6 years all because of parasitic lawyers and parents looking for and easy buck.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/boy-who-cut-arm-while-climbing-building-site-fence-gets-80000-settlement-37981874.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Berserker

BeerWolf wrote: »

Curious how insurance fraud is illegal, yet these frivolous claims are so readily handed out.

€25k for the inconveniece of being stuck in an elevator for 4 minutes??? W t f

You've nothing to lose. You are not going to end up in prison and insurance companies cannot refuse to give you quotations going forward.

BattleCorp

LionelNashe wrote: »

*If* the claims about the fence were true, it could have been a kid's throat that was sliced open and not just his arm. 80k is about right as a penalty, but most of it shouldn't go to the kid, I reckon, but be levied as some kind of health and safety fine.

Or, you know, parents could tell their kids not to climb fences to trespass onto a building site.

And we don't know if there was anything wrong with the fence. The plaintiff's counsel alleged that it was faulty, the defence said it wasn't, and there was no ruling on whether the fence was dodgy or not.

Eggs For Dinner

What we need are fences that are secure enough to protect a person's right not to have skangers enter their property, yet are harmless and accommodating to skangers who want to enter said property

Seems easy enough to me

kildare lad

I worked in a shop a few years ago, I was talking to the security guard and the subject of shoplifting can up. He said, he was told by the store managers that he had to be a million percent sure that someone was robbing before he approached them. The way they see it was if people are robbing a few t-shirts or knickers it doesn't amount to much , but if you get it wrong one time and stop someone who has paid , theres no more, them showing the receipt and him apologising. It now ends up court and them claiming for personal embarrassment and slander, the shop had to pay out 15,000 before in such a case. So unless they were a 100% sure and and it was something really valuable, the security were told to leave it

Edgware

BeerWolf wrote: »

Curious how insurance fraud is illegal, yet these frivolous claims are so readily handed out.

€25k for the inconveniece of being stuck in an elevator for 4 minutes??? W t f

It activated me claustrophobia Joe!

Eggs For Dinner

LionelNashe wrote: »

I think you're being ironic, but I agree with you. The wooden hoarding you see surrounding a lot of sites would be harder to climb than a mesh fence, and wouldn't cause a laceration like in the above case, and would be more stable.

Surely to God you're not advocating a security fencing system where some scrote has the potential of getting a splinter in his pinky? The psychological trauma of that would be immeasurable, except in Euro terms of course. That would make the ouch go away

drongadoir

We need to rewrite the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1995.

Rasputin11

We can't be too far away from a burglar successfully suing for damages occured while on the job.

Your Face

Rasputin11 wrote: »

We can't be too far away from a burglar successfully suing for damages occured while on the job.

We have arrived:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/burglar-sues-shop-owner-after-he-injured-his-testicles-while-robbing-the-premises-36468641.html

janfebmar

Rasputin11 wrote: »

We can't be too far away from a burglar successfully suing for damages occured while on the job.

That happened already in this banana republic , I remember a case where a young burgular fell through the roof of a business premises he was breaking in to, and he sued.

AlekSmart

Rasputin11 wrote: »

We can't be too far away from a burglar successfully suing for damages occured while on the job.

Here's one "burglar" who was prepared to give it a lash......

G'wan Waquil,ya good thing,sure them Irish are as dopey as well chewed Chat !!!!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-who-threw-himself-in-front-of-car-and-then-claimed-damages-against-driver-is-jailed-37987059.html

Judge Sheahan said Alatise’s motivation had been to defraud the woman’s insurance company and that he had submitted a claim to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which he had since withdrawn.

An eyewitness at the scene, Patrick O’Leary, later told gardaí he had seen the driver stopped for a few seconds at the car park entrance when a man walked across in front of her car and collapsed.

Mr O’Leary said the driver had not been on her phone and the man was not hit by the car.

The DPP concluded that the woman should not be prosecuted and gardaí arrested Alatise. The court heard that medical evidence supported the notion that Alatise had not been injured in the course of the incident.

Gda Byrne said Alatise made a civil claim to PIAB in October 2016, shortly before the two-year claim window expired. Alatise later wrote to AXA formally withdrawing his claim.

Mind you,Waquil,is apparently doing quite well for himself,without having to resort to criminality and inflicting harm upon innocent strangers.

Kim Moloney BL, defending, said her client had moved to Ireland from Lagos, Nigeria in 2008 under the Family Reunification Programme.

She said Alatise suffered a brain haemorrhage in 2013 and his marriage subsequently broke up, but that he remarried last year and his second wife lives in Lagos.

The court heard Alatise has been an Irish citizen since 2012 and works several jobs to support his children and ex-wife, who suffers from polio.

Ms Moloney presented several testimonials on behalf of her client and said Alatise had a good work history and an excellent education.

The court heard he had been doing a Masters in International Peace Studies at Trinity College and planned to submit his thesis this year, with the goal of completing a PhD at Oxford University.

A Degree in "Peace Studies" would appear to be appropriate alright ?

Fair play to Judge Elma Sheahan,who had the presence of mind to seperate the wheat from the chaff,when considering mitigation.

rob316

Buddy works in insurance told me if there is a claim against their customer for whiplash they will offer 15k to settle our of court as standard. It's impossible to prove someone has it.

I was just raised better than to blame someone else for a genuine accident or my stupidity. I could think of many times I could of claimed compo.

rob316

The worst I've seen is the 20k awarded to a woman who pulled her chair in and banged her knee off the leg of a table in a restaurant.
I'm must be wired different I'd just go "oww" and rub it fir a minute and get on with my meal.

Mad_maxx

rob316 wrote: »

Buddy works in insurance told me if there is a claim against their customer for whiplash they will offer 15k to settle our of court as standard. It's impossible to prove someone has it.

I was just raised better than to blame someone else for a genuine accident or my stupidity. I could think of many times I could of claimed compo.

Currently dealing with people who despite being negligent, refuse to facilitate an insurance claim, happens the other way too

Some people are afronted at the very idea of someone seeking redress

jmreire

Samuel Vimes wrote: »

Why blame judges?
Almost all of these cases were settled so it was nothing to do with the judge.
In fact it is extremely rare that the judge ever gets to decide in a personal injuries case as most never get to court as they are settled beforehand, and those that do get to court are either settled before the case gets to the judge or are only there for estimation of damages because liability has been accepted.
Ask the insurance companies why they keep settling!

They are settling in advance because its for them the most cost effective option.....going before the the Judge may cost them multiples of the agreed figure. So yes. The judges have a part to play in all this.....if the crazy awards were brought more in line with the rest of the EU, and fraud was investigated, and punished....it would rapidly decrease the Nr of cases being brought. As it stands....it's a win / win situation for any one bringing a fraudulent claim as it will cost him / her nothing.....with a high chance of a big insurance big pay out.
In England, there is the Insurance Fraud Detection Team, which is a branch of the Police and they investigate claims, and prosecute fraudsters. In one area that they targetted, claims fell by 47% in one year. The Insurance companies in Ireland have offered to fund a specialized Garda Fraud unit......but the Govt are not in favour.

fonecrusher1

Yippeeeee more free money!!!!

drongadoir

jmreire wrote: »

They are settling in advance because its for them the most cost effective option.....going before the the Judge may cost them multiples of the agreed figure. So yes. The judges have a part to play in all this.....if the crazy awards were brought more in line with the rest of the EU, and fraud was investigated, and punished....it would rapidly decrease the Nr of cases being brought. As it stands....it's a win / win situation for any one bringing a fraudulent claim as it will cost him / her nothing.....with a high chance of a big insurance big pay out.
In England, there is the Insurance Fraud Detection Team, which is a branch of the Police and they investigate claims, and prosecute fraudsters. In one area that they targetted, claims fell by 47% in one year. The Insurance companies in Ireland have offered to fund a specialized Garda Fraud unit......but the Govt are not in favour.

Fraudsters aren't the problem. Is the real cases and their absurd payouts that are appalling. Legal reform is needed.

Infini

They need to clamp down on frivilous claims and only allow those where serious injury has been actually been sustained. The whole problem with the whole thing is people are deliberatly gaming the system for malicious purposes and the ridiculous payments from some claims for really shoddy reasons like "emotional trauma" and "slipped on a chip" instead of basically denying these claims simply because people arent taking care to watch their surroundings or because they're malicious in intent.

kildare lad

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/you-have-told-this-court-a-pack-of-lies-man-withdraws-60k-injury-claim-after-photos-of-him-bodybuilding-and-playing-football-shown-in-court-37998356.html?fbclid=IwAR1bMi_gMH20NrU_DR9KdW9ok1vez0rV8w6BiF6rhGFXa3g7Re2LGNxxBVk

After being caught out, he withdrew his claim . How can't they be done for fraud?? He wasn't even made pay legal costs. It's a win / win situation. You either win your claim or lose it , but still it doesn't cost you anything ... joke

AllForIt

I broke my finger clicking on this thread.

BOARDS, my solicitor will be in touch, in due course.

BattleCorp

kildare lad wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/you-have-told-this-court-a-pack-of-lies-man-withdraws-60k-injury-claim-after-photos-of-him-bodybuilding-and-playing-football-shown-in-court-37998356.html?fbclid=IwAR1bMi_gMH20NrU_DR9KdW9ok1vez0rV8w6BiF6rhGFXa3g7Re2LGNxxBVk

After being caught out, he withdrew his claim . How can't they be done for fraud?? He wasn't even made pay legal costs. It's a win / win situation. You either win your claim or lose it , but still it doesn't cost you anything ... joke

I don't understand why the insurance company didn't seek costs. That said, they would never have been paid, but at least it would have made it difficult for the young lad to get a loan etc. with the outstanding debt.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Your Face wrote: »

We have arrived:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/burglar-sues-shop-owner-after-he-injured-his-testicles-while-robbing-the-premises-36468641.html

janfebmar wrote: »

That happened already in this banana republic , I remember a case where a young burgular fell through the roof of a business premises he was breaking in to, and he sued.

Anyone can sue for anything they like, it doesn't mean they will win and I'd be almost certain that the above cases would fail spectacularly in court.

The solicitor in the first case should be prosecuted and struck off for taking on such a fraudulent ridiculous claim. They're bigger criminals than the scumbags they represent!

Berserker

kildare lad wrote: »

After being caught out, he withdrew his claim . How can't they be done for fraud?? He wasn't even made pay legal costs. It's a win / win situation. You either win your claim or lose it , but still it doesn't cost you anything ... joke

It just doesn't happen in Ireland, for some reason. Would be interesting to see the public, media and political reaction if we was done for fraud.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't understand why the insurance company didn't seek costs. That said, they would never have been paid, but at least it would have made it difficult for the young lad to get a loan etc. with the outstanding debt.

The costs would never be paid, as you said, so that'll just end up costing the insurance company and that cost will end up being passed onto their customers.

beauf

Berserker wrote: »

...The costs would never be paid, as you said, so that'll just end up costing the insurance company and that cost will end up being passed onto their customers.

That cost would be cheaper than alternative. Which is do nothing and people think its a free for all.

Berserker

beauf wrote: »

That cost would be cheaper than alternative. Which is do nothing and people think its a free for all.

I agree but you also have to factor in the reaction by the media, politicians etc. It'd be cheaper in the long run if they backed the insurer and called out the fraudster. I strongly suspect that they'd side with the claimant and the insurer would be presented as big, bad and greedy.

mooreman09

Outrageous stuff - seems that we have Americanised this part of our system.

Its still bad but less so in the UK. My Sister in Law lives there and got hit from behind at a traffic light, sustained a genuine back and neck injury - of medium severity and had to get a new car which upped her finance payment. The payout is £5,500 after expenses. Which in my mind was warranted at the least. However over here - you have 5/6 times that payout for less severe accidents.

The judges are definitely to blame for setting precedent that allows these large settlements.

The parents in these cases ae slimey at best and have manipulated the system to their benefit. They are the ones going to the solicitors.

beauf

Berserker wrote: »

...the insurer would be presented as big, bad and greedy.

Nothing to lose so.

BattleCorp

beauf wrote: »

That cost would be cheaper than alternative. Which is do nothing and people think its a free for all.

I don't understand what you are trying to say above.

Costs would be significant. This case went to trial. Costs in preparing a trial are significant. Legal fees, engineering fees, medical fees etc. Getting to trial stage is expensive. There were lots of witnesses too so costs in this case could easily be in excess of €30k for the defence.

There are two losers in this case. Us insurance payers because we will end up covering the insurance company's costs, and the plaintiff's solicitors who will probably not get paid for their work.

Berserker

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't understand what you are trying to say above.

Costs would be significant. This case went to trial. Costs in preparing a trial are significant. Legal fees, engineering fees, medical fees etc. Getting to trial stage is expensive. There were lots of witnesses too so costs in this case could easily be in excess of €30k for the defence.

There are two losers in this case. Us insurance payers because we will end up covering the insurance company's costs, and the plaintiff's solicitors who will probably not get paid for their work.

If action was taken against the fraudster, it would set a precedent and make people think twice about submitting claims like this in the future. That would reduce the volume payouts. People can submit these claims at the moment, safe in the knowledge that they'll never be pursued if it is fraudulent.

beauf

Moral hazard.

Any time a party in an agreement does not have to suffer the potential consequences of a risk, the likelihood of a moral hazard increases.

Might have to explain what a moral is to the insurance company though...