Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Claims Crisis - Major Insurer pulls out saying claims culture and awards a joke

135678

Comments

  • #62
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    2 things

    1. Insurance companies often do not contest claims: Rather pay out and recoup from the customer. Then complain about settlements
    2. Insurance companies report next to no cases of potential insurance fraud, to AGS, because of this there is no penalty to Swing cases

    1) if a claim is 50/50, it's often much cheaper to pay the people off than try to contest it, end up in court, possiby lose, have a judge award what ever he sees fit and also get done for hefty legal fees too.

    2) how do they prove its fraud? In swing gate an incident did occur, the individual did get a bang and as such they are perfectly entitled to make a claim. They recieved legal advice telling them it was an open and shut case. The only reason it was not pursued was because the claimant was in the public eye and was rightly vilified for it. If she was not then it likely would not have made the papers until such time it went to court.

    I also believe that fraud is only actionable if false claims are made in a court of law and are proven to be false.

    You and others can bury your heads in the sand and trot out the same oul blinkered garbage but leisure insure exiting the market is as clear cut proof about the state of claims environment in Ireland as you could ever wish to see. Sticking your fingers in your ears and denying it doesn't make it any less true.


  • #63
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    1) if a claim is 50/50, it's often much cheaper to pay the people off than try to contest it.

    Exactly, that's the problem, companies no longer seeing the long game.. Yes its cheaper in the short term, till it ruins their business.

    Its much cheaper not to service your car, or sweep your chimney in the short term.

    I was in the UK a year ago and was in a petrol station shop with my wife and a lady took 2 bottles of wine off the shelf and walked out. Within a second or two my wife told the till operator who said its company policy not to prosecute shoplifters as its too expensive.


  • #64
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    100% agreed.

    We had a claim made against us in my work... Competely spurious as the issue was directly caused by the claimant themselves.... We vociferously argued this with the insurance company who told us that they were going to pay out and if we wanted to challenge it in court they would refuse to indemnify us.

    They paid out meekly.

    Raised our PI insurance to such a level that we had the total amount of the claim paid back to then within 3 years...

    Insurance is the only industry you cannot make a loss in.

    Insurance companies go out of business due to bad gambling in their side.

    When you sign up to an insurance policy you sign a subrogation waiver which means you agree to allow insurers assume the control of any claims. Knowing something is one thing, proving it beyond reasonable doubt and thus negating the claim is something else entirely. Now maybe you and your colleagues know more about claims and the likelihood of going to court and being successful than the insurers and their expert claims and legal departments, who knows, but if you did and do, why didn't ye agree to let them refuse indemnity and take on the time and expense of defending the claim yourselves?

    Or why bother buying insurance in the first place if ye know better?


  • #65
    Duane Dibbley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭Duane Dibbley


    Delighted they pulled out.

    Brought about by the compo culture, solicitors, judges and Government.

    Not the first and won’t be the last insurance company to pull out.


  • #66
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    Exactly, that's the problem, companies no longer seeing the long game.. Yes its cheaper in the short term, till it ruins their business.

    Its much cheaper not to service your car, or sweep your chimney in the short term.

    I was in the UK a year ago and was in a petrol station shop with my wife and a lady took 2 bottles of wine off the shelf and walked out. Within a second or two my wife told the till operator who said its company policy not to prosecute shoplifters as its too expensive.

    More often than not it's in the policy holders best interest too, as unpalatable as that may be for some to hear.

    What would you say is the better outcome, paying someone €10k to piss off and close a claim vs a claim that stays open for a number of years with a potential payout multiples of the €10k, plus legal fees, plus a reserve of probably minimum €25k hanging over them meaning they cannot move insurers until its closed.

    It's a no brainer.

    Its horrible seeing cnuts getting money for nothing and seeing innocent parties having claims against their record but that is the reality of things. Does anyone really think insurers take paying out thousands of euro lightly?

    Often times discretion is the better part of valour.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,871 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Berties_Horse wrote:
    And yet there are some who will defend FG to the hilt, fraudulent claims brushed under the carpet is the party line of callous indifference.

    Fraudulent claims handled by FG family solicitors no less.


  • #68
    Triangle
    Registered Users Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Triangle


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I don't care whether you like FG, FF, SF or any other bunch it's absolutely irrelevant. The point is the government is the only one that can tackle the insurance costs and claims culture. FG at present are the government and considering they have insurance fraudsters in the party they have no credibility in claiming they wish to tackle the problem.
    Who do you believe can address the insurance and compo culture if not the government?

    Shane Ross is trying to 'fix' the judiciary so that it's a better selection method.
    This is being halted in the seanad by filibustering from vested interests. As long as we have politicians that put their own/friends interests before the people - the longer we have crap like a claims culture in place.
    The big parties are full of self serving politicians and as long as we vote for them, we'll have vested interests put first.


  • #69
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 40,953 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    When you sign up to an insurance policy you sign a subrogation waiver which means you agree to allow insurers assume the control of any claims. Knowing something is one thing, proving it beyond reasonable doubt and thus negating the claim is something else entirely. Now maybe you and your colleagues know more about claims and the likelihood of going to court and being successful than the insurers and their expert claims and legal departments, who knows, but if you did and do, why didn't ye agree to let them refuse indemnity and take on the time and expense of defending the claim yourselves?

    Or why bother buying insurance in the first place if ye know better?

    Wow, put down then pom poms there miss cheerleader.

    When an insurance company can raise our PI level to the point at which the total claim was paid off within 3 years, (PI insurance which is mandatory in order to do our business) then why in gods name would they do anything BUT pay off the claim out of court.



    What you are posting as "the way things work" is EXACTLY the problem with the whole industry.... Youre not countering any points as to what is wrong with the industry.


  • #70
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,871 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    punisher5112 wrote:
    Them pesky swings taking our TDs jobs.....


    I hope the hotel in question seeks their costs from Bailey


  • #71
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Well a few days ago everyone was clapping to Pearse Doherty sticking it to the insurers. Here is perfect proof the problem is much bigger than insurance profits. So besides a bit of posturing nothing was achieved and people are still encouraged to make ridiculous claims.

    We need a law that dismisses any claims for soft tissue or where the injured party was in the cast less than a month, any psychological damage claims should be only allowed for people who had to be institutionalized and similar. And max layout for injuries that heal completely of 10k. It will resolve insurance crisis in no time.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    What would you say is the better outcome, paying someone €10k to piss off and close a claim vs a claim that stays open for a number of years with a potential payout multiples of the €10k, plus legal fees, plus a reserve of probably minimum €25k hanging over them meaning they cannot move insurers until its closed.
    Yes.

    The "no brainer" you mention is whats caused this mess, amazed you cant see it.

    It should be law that ALL claims must be looked at in a though manner (where doubt exists), any fraudster locked up, and forced to pay all costs.

    Fraud would soon reduce drastically.


  • #73
    Sonny noggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭Sonny noggs


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Well a few daus ago everyone was clapping to Pearse Docherty sticking it to the insurrers.

    Not everyone.


  • #74
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Wow, put down then pom poms there miss cheerleader.

    When an insurance company can raise our PI level to the point at which the total claim was paid off within 3 years, (PI insurance which is mandatory in order to do our business) then why in gods name would they do anything BUT pay off the claim out of court.



    What you are posting as "the way things work" is EXACTLY the problem with the whole industry.... Youre not countering any points as to what is wrong with the industry.

    I obviously was not clear enough in my post.

    If claims awards come down the premium prices will come down, it's really that simple believe it or not.

    Insurers made over 1 billion in underwriting losses between 2013 and 2017, that is the reality of it.

    If premiums do not rise then the insurers are no longer viable and they go bang like Quinn, Setanta, Quodos, Enterprise, or they pull out altogether like leisure insure, that is the reality of it.

    Lower claims awards means insurers have more money in their coffers which means prices reduce, that is the reality of it, as sure as night follows day.


  • #75
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    I think there is a huge issue when insurance companies not just charge exorbitant fees but when they actually refuse the money. It's clear Irish market is completely bonkers.


  • #76
    trixiebust
    Registered Users Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭trixiebust


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Well a few daus ago everyone was clapping to Pearse Doherty sticking it to the insurrers. Here is perfect proof the problem is much bigger than insurance profits. So besides a bit of posturing nothing was achieved and people are still encouraged to make ridiculous claims.

    We need a law that dismisses any claims for soft tissue or where the injured party was in the cast less than a month, any psychological damage claims should be only allowed for people who had to be institutionalized and similar. And max layout for injuries that heal completely of 10k. It will resolve insurance crisis in no time.

    I had a claim paid out against me a few years ago that totalled 80k, for what was described as a soft tissue injury. Still makes me sick when I think about it.


  • #77
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,346 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I don't get the outrage at this Madigan one. She was the solicitor I gather. While a solicitor should obviously not engage in fraud, it would be their responsibility to represent their client and advise them on legal things. So if a client comes in and says "I got some whiplash, what can I do" then it is the solicitors job to advise them. But I'd imagine they remain at the direction of the client. If the client gets a stupid payout, then that is the fault of the judge, not the solicitor.

    It's just amazing how gullible some of the legal profession would seem to be :rolleyes: That ambulance chasers can hide behind the "I was only acting on my client's instructions" excuse has less credibility than the "I was only following orders" excuse. At least those following orders can claim to have acted under duress or threat, solicitors have no such excuse.

    Solicitors also have a duty to the court but it would seem some place a higher value on their pocket than probity or propriety. Such solicitors are as much part of the problem as the scammers themselves.


  • #78
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    FishOnABike wrote: »
    It's just amazing how gullible some of the legal profession would seem to be :rolleyes: That ambulance chasers can hide behind the "I was only acting on my client's instructions" excuse has less credibility than the "I was only following orders" excuse. At least those following orders can claim to have acted under duress or threat, solicitors have no such excuse.

    Solicitors also have a duty to the court but it would seem some place a higher value on their pocket than probity or propriety. Such solicitors are as much part of the problem as the scammers themselves.

    While that's all true, it's the fact such high awards are possible that fuels the number claims. It's up to the state to limit the amounts awarded. In the same way as only small amount of claims are fraudulent but I bet majority are exaggerated. Limit the awards so it makes it pointless to go to court and most of them are settled outright and it will make ambulance chasing pointless. Legal profession are doing only what they are encouraged to do by high awards.


  • #79
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    Duane Dibbley wrote: »
    Delighted they pulled out.

    Brought about by the compo culture, solicitors, judges and Government.

    Not the first and won’t be the last insurance company to pull out.

    That's a nice way to glibly ignore the fact that a lot of employees will lose their jobs:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #80
    Duane Dibbley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭Duane Dibbley


    Kristopherus wrote: »
    That's a nice way to glibly ignore the fact that a lot of employees will lose their jobs:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I’m not ignoring the job losses.

    People who pay insurance and the insurance companies are being taken to the cleaners by the people who I stated above.

    I guess you prefer to ignore that fact:rolleyes:


  • #81
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    I also believe that fraud is only actionable if false claims are made in a court of law and are proven to be false.


    She claimed to not be able to run, she ran. That's an open and shut case to me. She should be serving a prison sentence and have to pay the amount claimed, €60k, to the hotel in compensation.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Jurgen The German
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Jurgen The German


    GarIT wrote: »
    She claimed to not be able to run, she ran. That's an open and shut case to me. She should be serving a prison sentence and have to pay the amount claimed, €60k, to the hotel in compensation.

    The fact she lied is not in doubt however, she did not do so in a court of law. As far as I can recall, unless an individual makes knowingly false statements about claims in court then there is no legal recourse ie they can change / recant their statement and not be exposed to any criminal action once it's not done on front of a judge. That appears to be why she is not facing any legal censure.


  • #83
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Jurgen The German wrote: »
    The fact she lied is not in doubt however, she did not do so in a court of law. As far as I can recall, unless an individual makes knowingly false statements about claims in court then there is no legal recourse ie they can change / recant their statement and not be exposed to any criminal action once it's not done on front of a judge. That appears to be why she is not facing any legal censure.


    I assume some kind of affidavit, which is a sworn statement of fact, was submitted to the court as part of the proceedings.

    Her lies on on the record.
    I'd certainly like to hear from some legal head, if any frequent this thread, if that could constitute an actionable false statement made to the court.
    Something tells me that even if it was everybody from the guards to the courts and leinster House will whistle past the graveyard and just pretend nothing can be done though.


  • #84
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    I'm hearing many many stories that most places are losing insurance and will be **** down such as bouncy castle business and other events places etc..


  • #85
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,071 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    We may just lock up the place altogether...

    https://m.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/popular-festival-oktoberfest-cancelled-in-dublin-due-to-increase-in-insurance-premium-and-irelands-claim-culture-38343037.html

    Popular festival Oktoberfest cancelled in Dublin due to 'increase in insurance premium and Ireland's claim culture'
    'In Germany we are not used to the claim culture'

    Ireland's become fun Bobby after he gave up the drink, just Bobby these days.


  • #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    We need to get a grip of this claims culture it's embarrassing.


  • #87
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    we've finally hit that peak, now hopefully something will be done and wipe that smug smile off ambulance chasing solicitors and the 'do nothings' who use this as a lottery.


  • #88
    Zipppy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,054 ✭✭✭Zipppy


    Eric Cartman wrote:
    we've finally hit that peak, now hopefully something will be done and wipe that smug smile off ambulance chasing solicitors and the 'do nothings' who use this as a lottery.


    i doubt anything will change...sadly...


  • #89
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Zipppy wrote: »
    i doubt anything will change...sadly...

    just wait until something like puck fair cant go ahead or large parts of it are curtailed, or the galway arts festival etc....


  • #90
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    just wait until something like puck fair cant go ahead or large parts of it are curtailed, or the galway arts festival etc....

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/puck-fair-launches-gofundme-to-cover-rising-insurance-and-running-costs-937347.html

    Puck Fair are fundraising to cover insurance. Absolutly damning stuff.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    mad muffin
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭mad muffin


    Thank you veeery much, Leo.


Advertisement