Bicycle & Car Accident - Insurance Company code of conduct

Is the injuries board a waste of time if insurance companies can refuse to deal with it?

  • Total voters
    8
K

kpbryww

Registered User
Messages
22
Is there any code of conduct that applies to how a insurance company deal with a claim?

A friend of my mine was knocked from their bicycle by a car 9 or 10 months back. Their bike was badly damaged and they were injured but thankfully not very badly and were released from hospital the same day.

They accept it was accident and just want to get on with their life but they are out of pocket by no fault of their own and would like to be reimbursed their costs, doctors fees, hospital costs and the repair of their bicycle etc.

They constantly contacted the insurance company to seek a settlement and when they stopped getting a response they submitted their claim through the injuries board.

The insurance company did not allow the injuries board to negotiate a settlement and advised my friend to immediately engage a solicitor to begin "proceeding".

They took the advise and engaged a solicitor. The solicitor contacted the insurance company first to negotiate a settlement without taking proceedings but the insurance company again refused to negotiate. The solicitor began the process of getting reports from the hospital, the doctors, an engineer and engaged a barrister and presumably the insurance company will have engaged a similar number of professionals.

Why is all this necessary?
The injuries board were willing to process and negotiate a settlement based on the information.
The solicitors costs alone will amount to more than the cost of settling the claim directly.
Why are the insurance company prolonging the process and exponentially increasing the cost of settlement?
There are witness to the accident saying the driver was at fault.
The driver admitted they pulled into the path of bicycle and that they didn't see the bicycle.
The guards are prosecuting the driver.
A insurance professional from a different company dealing with the same type of claims accessed the claim as a favor to my friend and could not understand why the insurance company would prolong settling.

Is it any wonder insurance costs are so high in this country?

What is the point of the injuries board if the insurance company still can push up the costs of claims?

Why are the insurance company doing it?

Who should they contact to make a complaint about the insurance company handling of the claim?

Considering there is so much in the news about excessive cost of insurance claims and the cost of barristers.
Is there a TD that might be able to investigate the reason for the lack of response from the insurance company?
 
(The fact that an insurance man from another company couldn,t understand prolonging things .)

If that is so , this case is an unusual outlier and not normal.
Could in this odd case , be simple mis management .
Since it seems to be unusual, as per other insurance man, it is not the type of issue that makes for higher claim costs.
 
The insurance company can't stop an assessment of a claim by the Injuries Board. But the Injuries Board will only assess a claim where liability is not in dispute.

Should the insurance company dispute liability the Injuries Board will not process the claim and instead issue a "release". This then allows the injured party to proceed with settlement by way of dealing with the courts.

Implication therefore would be that the insurance company is disputing liability.

they would need to write to the complaints officer of the insurance company in question and should they not get satisfaction then refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
 
thanks peteb. Writing to the complaints officer seems to be the next step.

So far as I am aware the insurance company are not willing to accept full liability without seeing the full report from the Guards which is not available until the prosecution court case is completed.

From what I know the solicitors did say that based on the information provided to them, the only thing likely to be in dispute is the percentage of liability that the insurance company accept.

It was my reasoning based on the above details that the insurance company could offer to settle for a relatively small amount without any admission of liability dealing directly with the cyclist. Saving the cost of engaging solicitors, barristers and engineers etc etc..


Maybe it is a single case of mismanagement but if not and this is normal process for some insurance companies I can certainly see why the cost of insurance settlements are so high.
 
Well if they are arguing some element of contributory negligence then it wouldnt be one for the Injuries Board but its hard to see how an insurer can say they are only partially liable in relation to injury where a car hits a bike.

maybe the insurer is concerned with possibly ongoing injury costs and want to nail it down. but it all seems a bit strange.
 
There's a good chance they're hoping the OP's friend just gives up and doesn't keep pursuing as it's just a bike damaged and not an expensive car... I know of a couple of other recent claims where liability was clear cut, but the insurance companies made the inured parties jump through hoops and chase for months to get to resolution.
 
Some motor policies have a general Legal Expenses optional extra cover.
I wonder if they would provide assistance even if when you had your accident you were on a bike and not the covered vehicle.
e.g.
http://www.aviva.ie/online/driving/car-insurance/options/legal-expenses/
 
Leo said:
There's a good chance they're hoping the OP's friend just gives up and doesn't keep pursuing as it's just a bike damaged and not an expensive car... I know of a couple of other recent claims where liability was clear cut, but the insurance companies made the inured parties jump through hoops and chase for months to get to resolution.
Click to expand...

Leo, as moderator, I'm surprised that you have such a biased view. You are entitled to your personal opinion, but I feel as Mod, you should be less biased.

Insurers need to settle claims quickly. If they are dragged out, the reserves need constant review and the compliance issues are horrendous. If liability was clearcut in this case, insurer would have at worst, allowed Injuries Board to assess. By not allowing them to assess, one must form the view that liability is in dispute.

If you were a motorist who was not in the wrong and your insurers settled a claim against your policy, would you say ah that's all right, they settled it cheaply, or would you be (rightly) raging that they would not back you?
 
Really interesting reading this. I was knocked off my bike last yr and broke my arm (badly). Driver admitted complete liability and I'm proceeding thru injuries board for now. The driver isn't being prosecuted. The TP insurers offered to 'manage' my medical treatment ( they accepted liability) but, after reading all the blurb they sent out, I declined this offer as it was clearly simply a away for them to reduce costs whereas I wanted the best medical care. I've had a medical assessment and am awaiting a settlement offer from the insurers/IB, however from what I hear the IB settlements are way less than what can be achieved by going thru courts which seems to defeat the purpose of the board itself, at least to some degree. I hear that a relatively small proportion of IB offers are accepted. IT seems really odd that the IB, set up to reduce costs, in fact delays settlements and there is an incentive for people in my position to instigate proceedings on the basis that a better deal is to be had? I don't want to milk the system, but I was injured and continue to suffer as a result of the accident, it's likely I always will, so I really do want to ensure I get the best on-going care, and from what I hear the IB and insurers really leave people like me ( and the ops friend) in an invidious position of having to go down the legal route, with all that entails. As an aside, I used to work in the area of motor insurance (a brokerage), and frankly I thought the underwriting standards of many insurers often swayed between overly cautious and reactionary to sell and damn the consequences, I hope things have changed but I suspect not.
 
Last edited:
Ravima said:
Leo, as moderator, I'm surprised that you have such a biased view
Click to expand...

So, your saying as a Moderator, an opinion shouldn't be expressed if it comes across as negative to you.

As I read the comment, it made a lot of sense, and I would say there is merit to it. Whether it applies to this particular incident is anyone guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ravima said:
Leo, as moderator, I'm surprised that you have such a biased view. You are entitled to your personal opinion, but I feel as Mod, you should be less biased.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm as entitled to share my opinion as anyone. Where all my experience, albeit thankfully limited, indicates a pattern, why should I pretend that's not the case?
 
Ravima said:
If you were a motorist who was not in the wrong and your insurers settled a claim against your policy, would you say ah that's all right, they settled it cheaply, or would you be (rightly) raging that they would not back you?
Click to expand...


This is true...but equally if I was a motorist that made a mistake and caused an accident I would be (rightly) raging that the insurance company did not settle with as little delay and expense as possible. The motorist in this accident said he did not see the cyclist and made no claim that it was the cyclist that caused the accident.
 
The motorist in this accident said he did not see the cyclist and made no claim that it was the cyclist that caused the accident.

Its a pity you didn't give this crucial bit of information in the initial posting. If driver accepted that he was wrong, then this is a gamechanger. Given this new bit of info, it does not make sense as to why Insurance Company would not allow Ib deal with the case.
 
"The motorist in this accident said he did not see the cyclist and made no claim that it was the cyclist that caused the accident."

That's not quite the same as the motorist accepting liability or accepting that the driver was wrong though is it?
It's more a "putting the ball into the other side's court".
If it is the cyclist who is bringing the claim, the onus is on them to make their case that the driver was liable.
 
In short, the defendant's insurers can deny liability and proceed to a full hearing leaving it to the trial judge to make the decision on liability and quantum of damages.

There is no automatic entitlement to expect the motorist's insurers to negotiate. That is why a plaintiff must get a move on where the PIB have authorised proceedings.

If the cyclist wins, legal costs will usually be awarded too. Generally, costs follow the event. The final and absolute discretion on awarding costs rests with the judge. Even if the plaintiff cyclist is adjudged to be guilty of some contributory negligence they may reasonably expect to get an order for full costs against the defendant.

Frankly, I would not waste time or energy on a complaint to or about the other person's insurers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top