# Compo culture



## Firefly (24 Jul 2019)

Yet another event pulled due to the compo culture that has developed in Ireland. This is really getting out of hand. 

Popular beer festival Oktoberfest has announced it is cancelling its Dublin event this year due to "unprecedented increases" in its insurance premium. 









						Popular festival Oktoberfest cancelled in Dublin due to 'increase in insurance premium and Ireland's claim culture'
					

Popular beer festival Oktoberfest has axed its Dublin event this year due to "unprecedented increases" in its insurance premium.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jul 2019)

Is there any figures behind this "compo culture"? In terms of the amount of claims and the payouts?


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jul 2019)

'In Germany we are not used to the claim culture': Dublin Oktoberfest event cancelled due to insurance cost
					

The festival was scheduled to take place on George’s Dock, beside the IFSC, from Friday 14 September until Saturday 6 October.




					www.thejournal.ie
				




The journal have done one of their FactChecks on this. The results appear to contradict the sentiment that it is "compo culture" that is driving premiums up. 

Aren't insurance companies required by law to keep significant amounts of their capital reserves in government bonds? The same bonds that are yielding negative interest rates? Could this be a factor in driving premium rates higher. In other words, a bail-in.


----------



## mathepac (24 Jul 2019)

Events like this are no great loss, other than to drinks companies, they add nothing culturally or intellectually.  I believe we need fewer events where the enjoyment seems to be in indulging in excess amounts of alcohol, vomiting and goodness knows what else on the landscape, fighting and all the other unpleasant consequences of mass intoxication.

On the wider issue, sticking it to "the man" with inflated or false insurance claims is also endemic as demonstrated by recent high-profile cases. Are insurance companies greedy? Yes and also have questionable financial expertise. RSA Ireland, ICI, PMPA, and countless others seem to attest to the fact that they're either financially incompetent or run by crooks, and of course, the regulatory framework is a bad joke, again established and run by people not fit for the job or with another agenda.


----------



## mtk (24 Jul 2019)

Down with fun


----------



## peemac (24 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Is there any figures behind this "compo culture"? In terms of the amount of claims and the payouts?


I would visit any civil sitting of a district Court and watch the shenanigans - it will be an eye opener for you on the daily scams that take place and how if a particular judge is sitting, cases are suddenly withdrawn. 

And these are the cases that get to court. 

In one Naas sitting 8 cases were withdrawn - in 6 of them costs up to that day were awarded against the plaintiff, but the chances of getting those costs are non existent.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Jul 2019)

peemac said:


> I would visit any civil sitting of a district Court and watch the shenanigans



I have no doubt about it. But it works both ways. The "no claims bonus" is bare faced shenanigans. How many genuine claims are not claimed for, for fear of losing the no claims bonus? Insurance companies save a pretty packet in that regard.

But either way, shenanigans have been with us for a long, long time. Why are premiums being pumped up now? If the Journal FactCheck is anything to go by, its not because of increasing claims or awards.


----------



## cremeegg (25 Jul 2019)

peemac said:


> In one Naas sitting 8 cases were withdrawn - in 6 of them costs up to that day were awarded against the plaintiff, but the chances of getting those costs are non existent.



While the chances of the defendant recouping their costs are indeed probably small, I would think that the chances of the plaintiffs solicitor getting paid are also small.

These orders for costs might discourage solicitors from taking on the more "optimistic" cases.


----------



## john luc (25 Jul 2019)

_








						Judge orders 'false and misleading' injury claim by Dublin taxi driver be considered for prosecution
					

A judge has directed that the facts relating to a personal injuries claim by a taxi driver be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions Claire Loftus for her consideration.



					www.irishexaminer.com
				



_


----------



## Seagull (25 Jul 2019)

john luc said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That individual is a right idiot. He's claiming for an incident, and submitting invoices from a prior date.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

The plaintiffs legal representation have some questions to answer also. Imagine taking a case and not being aware of the facts!


----------



## Delboy (25 Jul 2019)

Exactly...did no one in the Solicitor's office in that case look at the invoices and verify the dates! But they'll not be censured for wasting Court time and this chancer will also probably get away with it as I don't see the DPP doing anything


----------



## cremeegg (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The plaintiffs legal representation have some questions to answer also. Imagine taking a case and not being aware of the facts!



It was the barrister who said that he wasn't aware, and generally they would not be aware of such matters. 

The solicitors on the other hand should certainly have known, and probably did.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> It was the barrister who said that he wasn't aware, and generally they would not be aware of such matters.



The barrister for the defence seemed to be aware!


----------



## peemac (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> But either way, shenanigans have been with us for a long, long time. Why are premiums being pumped up now? If the Journal FactCheck is anything to go by, its not because of increasing claims or awards.


Motor insurance has come down substantially in the last couple of years. This year is the first time that mine is under €500 (business use) 
Wifes insurance quote just arrived, it's under €400, again first time under this level. 

The insurance that has skyrocketed is public liability, but changes to how you can make a claim and the manner more judges are dealing with obviously exaggerated claims should see it changing, but for real change the legal profession needs to look at itself


----------



## peemac (25 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> While the chances of the defendant recouping their costs are indeed probably small, I would think that the chances of the plaintiffs solicitor getting paid are also small.
> 
> These orders for costs might discourage solicitors from taking on the more "optimistic" cases.


Looks at the typical costs awarded in a district court cases. 8-10k for solicitors and 4-6k  for barristers (that's low end) 

You don't need to win all cases to earn a decent living.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jul 2019)

peemac said:


> Motor insurance has come down substantially in the last couple of years.



Mine hasn't, but that is beside the point. That only contradicts the report that premiums are rising.



peemac said:


> The insurance that has skyrocketed is public liability,



But why has it skyrocketed? 
The evidence suggests that the amount of claims and the associated awards has dropped.


----------



## peemac (25 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Mine hasn't, but that is beside the point. That only contradicts the report that premiums are rising.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not public liability. A friend of mine is involved in the play center business and a key member of their insurance group. Frivolous claims have risen substantially and many hope that claims are settled. 

Insurance companies are now taking a much harder line and a drop is being seen, but it will take a while to feed to premiums. 

Even in my own business, if I wanted to open a Cafe in a disused space, the insurance would go from about €1200 to over €3k.

If your car insurance has not dropped check around and add a partner as named driver - it can cut 20% off.


----------



## Firefly (26 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> Yet another event pulled due to the compo culture that has developed in Ireland. This is really getting out of hand.
> 
> Popular beer festival Oktoberfest has announced it is cancelling its Dublin event this year due to "unprecedented increases" in its insurance premium.
> 
> ...




"He revealed how a woman received €16,000 after a plastic flag with a beer logo fell on her shoulder and _another woman received €36,000 after she twisted her ankle while walking."_









						'People twisted their ankles dancing and it was somehow deemed our fault' - Oktoberfest boss slams compo culture
					

The organisers of popular beer festival Oktoberfest have slammed some of the "bizarre" personal injury claims which led to a hike in its insurance premium.




					www.independent.ie
				




I don't know how many times I've twisted my ankle....it tends to mend itself. In any case, if treatment was necessary, it should be easily fixed with 6 trips to a physio. So the award should be *100 times smaller*


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Jul 2019)

Here is an interesting article from IT on the "compo culture".









						Ireland’s 'compo' culture: Is change finally on the horizon?
					

As personal injury claims add up, insurance costs are putting retailers out of business




					www.irishtimes.com
				




A business person going about his business is landed with a premium hike from €4,000 to €12,000 for, what on the face of it, was a dubious claim.

Here is the bit that stands out for me;

“The insurance company settled it without discussing it with me.” 

What is going on here? Insurance companies hiking premiums on the basis of mounting claims (except that facts suggest the opposite) wont even contest the claims? 

Ive worked in insurance, for one of the big global companies when I lived in Australia. Specifically, I worked in an area that held files on Australian police officers who were claiming compensation as a result of injuries or trauma suffered in the course of their duties. 
The level of detail that these files held on the activities of the police officers was staggering. Photographs, time of leaving home, where they went to, what they did, how they did it. If an officer was claiming injury to their right hand for instance, everything that the officer used their right hand for was monitored - opening car door, holding shopping bags, waving, handshakes, gardening, playing cricket, etc...etc...
All of it was used to challenge the claim of injury, or the extent of that injury. So claims of $5,000 were thrown out, or reduced to maybe $500. 
It also had the effect of deterring bogus claims (if any) as the officers knew they would be rigorously monitored. 

But here, there is no apparent contest. Just pay out the compensation, and then increase the premium. 
Who does this suit?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Jul 2019)

More insurance shenanigans

The Vintners Federation of Ireland  (VFI) – a trade organisation for pubs outside the greater Dublin area – said a recent survey showed 77pc of publicans with no claims in five years have been hit with premium increases of 40pc.









						'The situation has claimed the livelihoods of many' - Well-known bar closes over hikes in insurance
					

The nightlife industry has been dealt another blow following the closure of a well-known bar in Co Wexford due to spiralling insurance costs.




					m.independent.ie
				




I think this bit sums it up;

“The reluctance of insurance companies to properly and fully defend cases and a willingness of the legal profession to take on spurious cases and to substantially reward themselves for doing so is part of the problem"


----------



## Firefly (29 Jul 2019)

*Tourist gets €67,000 for stairs fall in museum*

_The pensioner fell on the third step from the bottom. _









						Tourist gets €67,000 for stairs fall in museum
					

An Australian tourist who injured his leg when he slipped and rolled down stone stairs at the National Museum of Ireland has been awarded almost €67,000 by a High Court judge.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Jul 2019)

We need to get the Vinters lobby hammering the government, about the only lobby that might be able to stand up to the legal mafiosa.


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> We need to get the Vinters lobby hammering the government, about the only lobby that might be able to stand up to the legal mafiosa.


Yep, there's as many publicans as lawyers in the Dáil.


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> More insurance shenanigans
> 
> The Vintners Federation of Ireland  (VFI) – a trade organisation for pubs outside the greater Dublin area – said a recent survey showed 77pc of publicans with no claims in five years have been hit with premium increases of 40pc.
> 
> ...


Very good posts on this topic WolfeTone


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> The pensioner fell on the third step from the bottom.



What is the significance of falling from the third step from the bottom?


----------



## Firefly (29 Jul 2019)

'The situation has claimed the livelihoods of many' - Well-known bar closes over hikes in insurance
					

The nightlife industry has been dealt another blow following the closure of a well-known bar in Co Wexford due to spiralling insurance costs.




					www.independent.ie
				




_A former nightclub owner in Co Tipperary told how he had to close down his business because he couldn't afford the insurance costs after a string of compensation claims by customers.  _


----------



## Firefly (29 Jul 2019)

Seven personal injury actions fall after assessor says 'cars never made contact'
					

Seven personal injury actions worth up to a total of €420,000 from a 'rear-ending' road traffic accident have been dismissed or withdrawn after a motor assessor told a court that the two cars involved never collided.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




_Seven personal injury actions worth up to a total of €420,000 from a 'rear-ending' road traffic accident have been dismissed or withdrawn after a motor assessor told a court that the two cars involved never collided. _


----------



## Purple (29 Jul 2019)

Firefly said:


> Seven personal injury actions fall after assessor says 'cars never made contact'
> 
> 
> Seven personal injury actions worth up to a total of €420,000 from a 'rear-ending' road traffic accident have been dismissed or withdrawn after a motor assessor told a court that the two cars involved never collided.
> ...


But there was no fraud... right?


----------



## Firefly (30 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> But there was no fraud... right?



Difficult to believe alright 

Drastically reducing the awards paid out would really help in stamping out this Compo Culture, but I wonder should there be a special unit set up within an Gardai to investigate these claims? 

Also, I think where cases are found against the plaintiff & cost are awarded, failure to pay within the specified dates should result in time behind bars. And this should be enforced.


----------



## Firefly (30 Jul 2019)

And on it goes...









						Schoolboy hit with legal bill as 'deflated football' case is dismissed
					

A schoolboy has failed in his personal injury action where he claimed his primary school was negligent in supplying him with a deflated football that caused him to break his wrist during a soccer match.




					www.independent.ie
				




_"A schoolboy has failed in his personal injury action where he claimed his primary school was negligent in supplying him with a deflated football that caused him to break his wrist during a soccer match."

"Julius claimed that kicking the deflated ball during a soccer match with class-mates at break-time on March 14, 2017, caused him to fall."

"...the school had to employ its own engineer in its defence"_


----------



## michaelm (30 Jul 2019)

People should at least have to pay their own costs in failed compensation cases.  Where the case looks fraudulent they should perhaps have the option to immediately pay the costs of the defendant or face fraud charges.  I wonder would it help if there was a short-list of judges who dealt with all claims cases.  Also the claims history of the plaintiff should be available to the court.  Awards should look primarily at medical bills and lost earnings to calculate modest awards.

There does need to be some level of claims otherwise some councils and businesses would be lax about providing a save environment.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2019)

There have been many reports of failed compensation claims recently in the newspapers. Much more than usual.

Is this because there are more failed claims, or is it because someone wants to highlight the "fact" that not all compensation claims are successful.

I have a suspicious mind. Someone is playing the press here.

Someone is trying to paint a picture that lots of bogus compensation claims fail, thus suggesting that the system is working well, further suggesting that it does not need reform.

The press being lazy is playing along.


----------



## Firefly (30 Jul 2019)

michaelm said:


> Also the claims history of the plaintiff should be available to the court.



I think this is a good idea!


----------



## michaelm (30 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Someone is trying to paint a picture that lots of bogus compensation claims fail, thus suggesting that the system is working well, further suggesting that it does not need reform.


But then there's the likes of this story https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...-fiance-beaten-in-street-attack-38357898.html

Now no doubt some compensation was merited but dare I suggest that €1.1 million is excessive?


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

michaelm said:


> But then there's the likes of this story https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...-fiance-beaten-in-street-attack-38357898.html
> 
> Now no doubt some compensation was merited but dare I suggest that €1.1 million is excessive?



Im not sure, it was a pretty despicable experience at the hands of a State organ. A State organ that is granted, for obvious reasons, extensive powers. It is extremely important that such powers are used for the intended purpose and not used, as appears to be the case here, to infringe on the basic rights of the citizen to be treated with due regard to the law. An assumption was made by officers, who set about invoking their powers, unnecessarily, against this man, subjecting him to verbal and physical abuse on that assumption. 
The award, as I mention in another thread, sends a message and will hopefully drive standards in the Gardai to minimize the possibility of such occurences in the future. 
And for the 2m+ taxpayers in the country, it costs us around €0.50c each!


----------



## Purple (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Im not sure, it was a pretty despicable experience at the hands of a State organ. A State organ that is granted, for obvious reasons, extensive powers. It is extremely important that such powers are used for the intended purpose and not used, as appears to be the case here, to infringe on the basic rights of the citizen to be treated with due regard to the law. An assumption was made by officers, who set about invoking their powers, unnecessarily, against this man, subjecting him to verbal and physical abuse on that assumption.
> The award, as I mention in another thread, sends a message and will hopefully drive standards in the Gardai to minimize the possibility of such occurences in the future.
> And for the 2m+ taxpayers in the country, it costs us around €0.50c each!


Maybe giving the man in question a few Dunnes Stores vouchers and making the Gardai spend €1.1 training their officers in the correct application of their powers would have been a better use of public money.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> Maybe giving the man in question a few Dunnes Stores vouchers and making the Gardai spend €1.1 training their officers in the correct application of their powers would have been a better use of public money.



Maybe, or maybe it would induce Garda training officers to encourage officers to overstep their powers, ensuring a perpetual fattening of the training budget and overtime. 
I can hear the complaints already...why do we spend so much on Garda training and they still make all these mistakes!? 

False imprisonment, false detention, verbal and physical abuse, is no laughing matter.


----------



## Purple (30 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Maybe, or maybe it would induce Garda training officers to encourage officers to overstep their powers, ensuring a perpetual fattening of the training budget and overtime.
> I can hear the complaints already...why do we spend so much on Garda training and they still make all these mistakes!?
> 
> False imprisonment, false detention, verbal and physical abuse, is no laughing matter.


I'd take it for half the money.
For €1.1 million they could have done waterboarding.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> I'd take it for half the money.
> For €1.1 million they could have done waterboarding.



Me too. But if the system is set up to award bigger amounts only a clown would turn it away.


----------



## Firefly (30 Jul 2019)

It's more or less one every day at the moment....









						Man who gave nine variations of accident suffered at work has €60k damages claim dismissed
					

A man who gave nine variations of an accident he suffered at work has had his €60,000 damages claim dismissed by the Circuit Civil Court.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




_A man who gave nine variations of an accident he suffered at work has had his €60,000 damages claim dismissed by the Circuit Civil Court.

Mr English pointed out that Andrei had eventually attended a doctor in April 2015 in Leixlip despite the fact he had been living in Castleknock at the time. He said Andrei had attended this GP under the instruction of his solicitors._


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Jul 2019)

Interesting that it was the solicitor who advised his client to attend a doctor in Leixlip, in April 2015, after the accident in February 2015. 
The more I think about it, these spurious claims are being driven by the legal profession itself. 
A professional solicitor would have asked the client for a doctor's report. Upon telling the solicitor that he had not been to a doctor, the solicitor should have informed him that there was no case to put forward, and said goodbye. Instead, he advised his client to attend a doctor and nominated the doctor himself.


----------



## cremeegg (30 Jul 2019)

Man awarded €1.1m over wrongful arrest on same night fiancée beaten in street attack
					

A man wrongfully arrested the same night his fiancée was savagely beaten by another man in a random street attack has been awarded more than €1.1m by a High Court jury.




					www.independent.ie
				




The original purpose of the law is to protect against the abuse of state power. No abuse is worse than the organs of the state against a private citizen.

The man deserves a public apology from the garda Commissioner and indeed even from the President on behalf of the state. He also deserves substantial financial compensation, say six months income, I would call that substantial.* €1.1m is insane.*

Is Garda Theresa Phillips going to be held accountable for her actions on the night.

Credit where it is due the Gardai did eventually arrest and get a conviction against the guilty person.


----------



## Peanuts20 (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> I'd take it for half the money.
> For €1.1 million they could have done waterboarding.



The guy was was arrested and detained for something he didn't do, he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he was hosed down with a cold water hose in a Garda carpark at 2am in the morning in the middle of winter twice and then left sit in a cold pee covered cell in his wet clothes. He was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD which to me is perfectly understandable. Imagine how angry we'd be if this happened an Irish man in London. Good for him if he got €1.1m and hopefuly now the new Garda commissioner will do the right thing and sack the officers in question


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

Peanuts20 said:


> The guy was was arrested and detained for something he didn't do, he was pepper sprayed 3 times, he was hosed down with a cold water hose in a Garda carpark at 2am in the morning in the middle of winter twice and then left sit in a cold pee covered cell in his wet clothes. He was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD which to me is perfectly understandable. Imagine how angry we'd be if this happened an Irish man in London. Good for him if he got €1.1m and hopefuly now the new Garda commissioner will do the right thing and sack the officers in question


€1.1 million of taxpayers money that won't be spent on something else.
He certainly deserved compensation but maybe €30k-€40k. 

I bet the officer in question won't be sacked. She should be, but she won't be.


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> €1.1 million of taxpayers money that won't be spent on something else.
> He certainly deserved compensation but maybe €30k-€40k.
> I bet the officer in question won't be sacked. She should be, but she won't be.



The officer in question should be in jail and stripped of pension.

As for the payout, I'd go for somewhere in between your figures, let's say €100,000


----------



## Peanuts20 (31 Jul 2019)

Part of the issue here is that the state contested everything on this case and it took 7 years to come to a conclusion. They continued to fight after someone else was convicted of the original assault. To me, the Gardai should be held to a higher standard with higher consequences, both for the officers in question and for the force as a whole. Hence I have no issue with the €1.1m although I expect it will be reduced on appeal.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Jul 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> The officer in question should be in jail and stripped of pension.



Well the behaviour of the gard in question should certainly be investigated, and the training regime which produced such attitudes.

Certainly her pension and that of the others whose actions contributed to the payout cost should be used to recoup the cost to the tax payer.


----------



## Firefly (31 Jul 2019)

Peanuts20 said:


> Hence I have no issue with the €1.1m although I expect it will be reduced on appeal.



I have a feeling it will be paid to get it out of the news..


----------



## Purple (31 Jul 2019)

cremeegg said:


> Certainly her pension and that of the others whose actions contributed to the payout cost should be used to recoup the cost to the tax payer.


You'd only need one of their pensions to recoup the cost to the State.


----------



## Firefly (20 Aug 2019)

He showed CCTV of an incident where a customer was punched in the face by a friend.
They dubbed it the 'tooth fairy case' after she later brought a compensation claim.
She said she slipped on the floor in the venue, damaged her teeth and tried to claim over €8,000 in medical expenses.
However, after watching back the CCTV footage, they realised she hadn't fallen and had gotten into a row with her friend.
She dropped the case after being informed of what the CCTV showed.
"We have 80 CCTV cameras watching everything in the venue. This girl had a medical bill for €8,500 and wanted us to pay it but we weren't going to pay when we did nothing in the wrong. 

"We had another case involving two teachers, we dubbed that case the 'dancing queens'. It was around Christmas time and one of them fell, cracked her tooth and wanted to see the CCTV as she wanted to bring a claim. She said she fell on a slippery floor but we had evidence showing otherwise. Her friend was holding her dancing and let her go and when we showed her what actually happened, she ran out of the pub."


A former nightclub owner in Co Tipperary told how he had to close down his business because he couldn't afford the insurance costs after a string of compensation claims by customers.

The 58-year-old, who owned a club that had been in his family for 120 years, shut the club down in the summer of 2016 as it was costing him €35,000 to insure the premises each year.










						'We're losing our culture' - nightclubs shut down, dance floors closed and alcohol prices soar due to rising insurance costs
					

PUB and club owners are being forced to close dance floors and increase alcohol prices in an attempt to offset rising insurance premiums.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Firefly (20 Aug 2019)

In November, Supermac's received a solicitor's letter advising how the man in question intended to bring a personal injury claim.
"We are instructed by our client that he was caused to fall due to the condition of the floor of the men's toilets in your premises and as a consequence thereof suffered injuries, loss and damage," the letter reads.
CCTV recorded shows the man walking into the bathroom and photographing an area of the ground covered in the water.
He then leaves the bathroom, returns around 15 minutes later and can be seen corresponding with someone before he appears to slip and fall.
The man can be seen grabbing his head and knocking on the door looking for assistance in the footage.
Towards the end of the video, he wriggles forward and continues to lie on the ground.









						WATCH: 'We will continue to fight these claims' - CCTV shows man 'slipping' in Supermac's after photographing wet floor
					

SUPERMAC'S founder Pat McDonagh has revealed there are currently 73 personal injury claims pending against outlets across the country - and has vowed to defend those he believes to be exaggerated.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Firefly (20 Aug 2019)

A woman who claimed she suffered "possible PTSD" and stopped eating in restaurants after she allegedly found a thumbtack in her chips - dropped a personal injuries case against Supermac's after footage emerged of her dining in a hotel.
She took legal action after eating in the Carrick-on-Suir branch in February 2016.
The claimant proceeded to Tipperary Circuit Court but withdrew the case after the defence declared it had video footage of her eating a carvery at the Carraig Hotel in Carrick-on-Suir in October 2017 - over two months before she swore an affidavit claiming she could no longer eat in restaurants.
"The fall guy ends up being the taxpayer," Mr McDonagh said.









						WATCH: 'We will continue to fight these claims' - CCTV shows man 'slipping' in Supermac's after photographing wet floor
					

SUPERMAC'S founder Pat McDonagh has revealed there are currently 73 personal injury claims pending against outlets across the country - and has vowed to defend those he believes to be exaggerated.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2019)

Pat McDonagh, contesting claims and beating McDonalds in a copyright action. The man's a hero.


----------



## Seagull (21 Aug 2019)

My issue is that in these cases, there is no action taken against the individuals who are obviously engaged in fraudulent activity.


----------



## Firefly (21 Aug 2019)

Seagull said:


> My issue is that in these cases, there is no action taken against the individuals who are obviously engaged in fraudulent activity.



Exactly. There is no downside so nothing to stop them chancing their arm..


----------



## Firefly (15 Oct 2019)

*Boy in €60,000 injury case filmed jumping off bridges*

_Mr Martin presented the Circuit Civil Court judge with online evidence of a young Reece Fagan, of Rutland Court, Dublin 1, somersaulting off bridges into water and scrambling on his scrambler motorbike only weeks after a collision in which he claimed he had received neck injuries.

Mr Martin told Judge O'Connor he believed the case had been fraudulent as both Mr Fagan and Mr Ryan had "run away" over lunch._









						Boy in €60,000 injury case filmed jumping off bridges
					

A teenager who was "influenced into going down the path of taking a fraudulent injury claim" had publicly divulged on Facebook pictures that suggested he had no apparent injuries at all, a judge has been told.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Leo (15 Oct 2019)

The solicitors taking these cases are wising up....


----------



## joe sod (15 Oct 2019)

Solicitors were always aware of these scams, all they cared about was whether they could win in court regardless, solicitors have been part of the problem of compo culture, this was obvious from the Maria Bailey case.
They are only "wising up" because public opinion has turned heavily against compo culture especially since Maria Bailey, they just want to position themselves onside of public opinion, they are only shifting now because of public opinion.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2019)

Firefly said:


> _Mr English pointed out that Andrei had eventually attended a doctor in April 2015 in Leixlip despite the fact he had been living in Castleknock at the time. He said Andrei had attended this GP under the instruction of his solicitors._



It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Law Society's investigation into the solicitor in question and whether criminal proceedings will be brought against them if it is found that they were a knowing accomplice in the scam. 

I won't hold my breath though.


----------



## demoivre (16 Oct 2019)

The tram surfer who received €550,000 for her injury, despite admitting the accident was her own fault, takes some beating ! She does sound lovely though and perhaps endeared herself to the judge.


----------



## Leper (16 Oct 2019)

We can blame the Legal profession. We can blame the false claimers. We can blame greed. We can blame anything or anybody we wish. But, until our government introduces a law proclaiming personal responsibility against stupid accidents we might as well get used to paying higher premia forever.


----------



## Firefly (16 Oct 2019)

Where costs are found against the plaintiff, I wonder if the solicitor who brought the case had to pay the fine initially and get the funds from the plaintiff themselves would it help???


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2019)

demoivre said:


> The tram surfer who received €550,000 for her injury, despite admitting the accident was her own fault, takes some beating ! She does sound lovely though and perhaps endeared herself to the judge.



Its wrong to target the plaintiff here. She didn't make the award. 
Regardless of her irresponsibility (even as 13yr old) the case does appear to have identified a genuine flaw in safety standards of operating the trams. 
This time it was an award made by a judge, not the plantiff, for actions that amounted to wreckless behaviour by a 13yr old child. 
Fortunately we weren't dealing with accidental and tragic consequences of someone else who may have suffered injuries as a consequence of this flaw in safety standards. 
It sends a message to operators of such vehicles that there is no room for a drop in any standards.
A payout like this will drive safety standards.
I do think payouts, particularly where guilt is admitted, should be costed for the medical treatment provided.


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Its wrong to target the plaintiff here. She didn't make the award.
> Regardless of her irresponsibility (even as 13yr old) the case does appear to have identified a genuine flaw in safety standards of operating the trams.
> This time it was an award made by a judge, not the plantiff, for actions that amounted to wreckless behaviour by a 13yr old child.
> Fortunately we weren't dealing with accidental and tragic consequences of someone else who may have suffered injuries as a consequence of this flaw in safety standards.
> ...


What specific flaw in safety standards are you talking about?


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> What specific flaw in safety standards are you talking about?



I assume the claim that there were inadequate visual systems in operation was upheld? That that was a factor in determining liability for the injuries sustained?
Otherwise, on what basis was the award made?


----------



## Purple (16 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I assume the claim that there were inadequate visual systems in operation was upheld? That that was a factor in determining liability for the injuries sustained?
> Otherwise, on what basis was the award made?


So not being able to check if there are people hanging in to the outside of the Tram is a safety flaw?
What if she had climbed onto the roof? Should the driver have to check that before they pull off from each stop too?
This is the usual case of a well heeled judge throwing around other people's money like a king in his court. I remember the case of a man who came home drunk to the council house he had lived in for decades and falling on the tiled floor in his hall and getting over a hundred thousand from the judge when he sued the Corpo. The judge was "looking after the poor chap".


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> So not being able to check if there are people hanging in to the outside of the Tram is a safety flaw?



I haven't read the full judgement, I can only go on what was reported in the article.

"_Veolia Transport's failure to have any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram meant the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non platform side of the tram before leaving the station.
It was claimed the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non platform side of the tram."_

Sounds pretty alarming to me if a driver of a tram is unable to see out on one side of the vehicle.


----------



## Leo (17 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Sounds pretty alarming to me if a driver of a tram is unable to see out on one side of the vehicle.



Let's not forget that these very same trams, with the lack of idiot detection are working perfectly well in other countries where people who endanger themselves are not receiving massive payouts for their stupidity.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Oct 2019)

Nothing to do with stupidity, all to do with public safety. 

It doesn't take long to search horror stories of trams and trams and passengers across Europe caught in life threatening situations. 
The point being, if the driver was able to see both sides of the vehicle (I would have thought a routine safety procedure using cutting edge technology such as a mirror) then the driver would have seen a child acting irresponsibly by 'tram surfing'.


----------



## Leo (17 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Nothing to do with stupidity, all to do with public safety.



So what is it about these trams that make them perfectly safe everywhere else but not here?

Putting in place controls to prevent people from doing extraordinarily stupid things isn't a public safety issue. A lot more people are injured in falls from bicycles, perhaps stabilisers should be mandatory for all??


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I haven't read the full judgement, I can only go on what was reported in the article.
> 
> "_Veolia Transport's failure to have any adequate visual systems employed and activated on the tram meant the driver was unable in the circumstances to see the non platform side of the tram before leaving the station.
> It was claimed the tram pulled off from the station without first observing the non platform side of the tram."_
> ...


So if a driver can't see someone doing something criminal and dangerous he/his company is liable.


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Nothing to do with stupidity, all to do with public safety.
> 
> It doesn't take long to search horror stories of trams and trams and passengers across Europe caught in life threatening situations.
> The point being, if the driver was able to see both sides of the vehicle (I would have thought a routine safety procedure using cutting edge technology such as a mirror) then the driver would have seen a child acting irresponsibly by 'tram surfing'.


If the end of the tram is on a bend what use is a mirror.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> So what is it about these trams that make them perfectly safe everywhere else but not here?



Im not sure how you have concluded that these trams are 'perfectly safe everywhere else'?


Leo said:


> Putting in place controls to prevent people from doing extraordinarily stupid things isn't a public safety issue.



I agree its not. But employing and activating adequate visual systems for operating a tram would be. I would imagine, for the purposes of minimising injury as a consequence of people's actions (stupid or otherwise).
According to the article, it was claimed that no such adequate visual systems were in place.
I don't have the full judgement, but I will hazard a guess that the judgement in favor of the claimant was based largely on this claim being substantiated and being a primary factor in the resulting injury (combined with the stupidity of the 13yr olds actions).
Admittedly, im only speculating, but I can't imagine the award being given for anything else.



Purple said:


> So if a driver can't see someone doing something criminal and dangerous he/his company is liable



I wouldn't think so.



Purple said:


> If the end of the tram is on a bend what use a mirror.



First, I said "technologies _such as _a mirror", but not specifically a mirror.
Secondly, was the tram on a bend?
Was this used as a defence?
Was it countered by the plantiff?
Did the judge dismiss it, or did the judge take it into account when making the award? Meaning the award could have been greater if it weren't for this argument.
I don't know, because all we have is a summary of events that propel the irresponsible actions of a thirteen year old into an eye catching headline.


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2019)

So train drivers are now expected to check the non-platform side of their trains to make sure no idiots have climbed onto the tracks and are clinging on to the side of the tram??? Why not make them get them get out of their cab at every stop and walk around both sides of the train and across the roof (they could be there as well). We should do the same with bus drivers. Oh and pilots should be given mirrors so they can make sure no fun loving teenagers have climbed onto a wing for a bit of surfing...…..


----------



## Purple (17 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I wouldn't think so.


It seems the judge disagrees with you.



WolfeTone said:


> First, I said "technologies _such as _a mirror", but not specifically a mirror.


So what, practically, should the driver be expected to do? Remember that the LUAS stops  at traffic lights, not just at stations.



WolfeTone said:


> Secondly, was the tram on a bend?


 No, but there are bends at many points where the LUAS has to come to a halt. Are you suggesting that there should be a protocol for every individual stop and set of traffic lights? Should Transdev do a risk assessment of every place their trams stop and decide to no longer stop at those where the driver won't be able to make sure some gomb hasn't climbed onto the side/back/roof of the tram?


----------



## Leo (17 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Im not sure how you have concluded that these trams are 'perfectly safe everywhere else'?



The safety certificates and published accident reports confirm they are indeed very safe.  

Most of would suggest that an person deliberately climbing onto the outside of a tram for the purposes of getting a thrill or looking cool reflects more on that individual rather than any quality of the tram.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Oct 2019)

Sunny said:


> So train drivers are now expected to check the non-platform side of their trains



With the aid of adequate visual systems employed and activated, I would imagine it to be routine procedure before commencing travel. Wouldn't you?



Sunny said:


> Why not make them get them get out of their cab at every stop and walk around both sides of the train and across the roof (they could be there as well).



With the deployment and activation of adequate visual systems there would be no need for such cumbersome checks.



Purple said:


> It seems the judge disagrees with you.



I dont see how? I dont think the award was made on the basis of criminal and dangerous behaviour of the 13yr old. 



Purple said:


> So what, practically, should the driver be expected to do? Remember that the LUAS stops at traffic lights, not just at stations.



Activate and employ adequate visual systems before commencing travel. 



Purple said:


> No, but there are bends at many points where the LUAS has to come to a halt. Are you suggesting that there should be a protocol for every individual stop and set of traffic lights?



Not at all. The employment and activation of adequate visual systems would appear to be sufficient for the business to avoid liability in the event of accidents occurring, irresponsible or otherwise.



Leo said:


> The safety certificates and published accident reports confirm they are indeed very safe.



I agree they are very safe, but not perfectly safe. Particularly if deployed with adequate visual systems. 
My car is very safe, but if the rear brake lights stop working, it is less safe. In the event of an accident, having no adequate brake lights may be a significant factor in determining liability regardless of anything else including the actions of any other party.



Leo said:


> Most of would suggest that an person deliberately climbing onto the outside of a tram for the purposes of getting a thrill or looking cool reflects more on that individual rather than any quality of the tram.



I wouldn't suggest otherwise.


----------



## Sunny (17 Oct 2019)

Whats even safer than all the safety measures in the world is 13 year olds don't climb on trams. Don't Surf on the back of buses. Don't walk across train tracks. Don't climb into plane engines. Don't walk on motorways. Don't run across busy roads. My 6 year old is taught about dangerous situations and while nothing can prevent pure accidents, if she decided to surf a tram, I wouldn't be suing the train company.


----------



## Seagull (17 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Law Society's investigation into the solicitor in question and whether criminal proceedings will be brought against them if it is found that they were a knowing accomplice in the scam.
> 
> I won't hold my breath though.


But then you'd be properly purple.


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Not at all. The employment and activation of adequate visual systems would appear to be sufficient for the business to avoid liability in the event of accidents occurring, irresponsible or otherwise.


So your concern is the liability of the company, not the safety of those engaging in dangerous and criminal behaviour. It that correct?

In practical terms how can a driver, even with an array of cameras that the NSA would be jealous of, ever be able to determine that nobody was holding onto the tram as it pulled away from every set of traffic lights? Do bear in mind that he/she has to look at what is in front of them as they pull off rather than the bank of screens from all the cameras.


----------



## Firefly (18 Oct 2019)

"Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim"

A picture tells a thousand words they say...









						Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim
					

A WOMAN who tumbled over a bench when she was a schoolgirl and fractured her arm has lost her case for damages.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

Firefly said:


> "Woman who sued school after fracturing her arm during game 13 years ago loses claim"
> 
> A picture tells a thousand words they say...
> 
> ...


I've way more sympathy for her than for the LUAS surfer.


----------



## Leo (18 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree they are very safe, but not perfectly safe. Particularly if deployed with adequate visual systems.



What is perfectly safe? Limited to 5km/h while being escorted by a team of safety personnel to ensure no one comes within 5m of it while in motion?



WolfeTone said:


> My car is very safe, but if the rear brake lights stop working, it is less safe. In the event of an accident, having no adequate brake lights may be a significant factor in determining liability regardless of anything else including the actions of any other party.



But what if someone crawled out in front of your car while you were stopped at traffic lights? That'd be pretty stupid, but surely you should have extra mirrors and cameras to detect such an event. Perhaps you need to take a walk around your car every time before you start to move again to ensure there are no idiots present? 



WolfeTone said:


> I wouldn't suggest otherwise.



Yet you are suggesting the trams need more cameras, mirrors or procedures to stop people doing incredibly stupid things. At what point do we decide to let the really stupid people pay for the consequences of their own actions rather than society as a whole continually having to pay more to subsidise their stupidity?


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> At what point do we decide to let the really stupid people pay for the consequences of their own actions rather than society as a whole continually having to pay more to subsidise their stupidity?


What's really stupid is that we continue to reward stupidity and are then baffled when we get more types of stupid.


----------



## Leo (18 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> What's really stupid is that we continue to reward stupidity and are then baffled when we get more types of stupid.



Perhaps it's all a consequence of the rise of over zealous health and safety where stupid that might have been eliminated from the gene pool is allowed to propagate and multiply. Perhaps Idiocracy was a warning....


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Oct 2019)

I can't figure out who is acting more idiotically, the person who without thinking puts themselves into danger; or the judge who is given to reflect on the case and makes decisions like these! Different kinds of stupid maybe.


----------



## Firefly (18 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> What is perfectly safe? Limited to 5km/h while being escorted by a team of safety personnel to ensure no one comes within 5m of it while in motion?



How about the old days? 







That horse looks a bit wild. The copper might get a knock and claim for whiplash. And....is that an early "ambulance chasing" lawyer behind the lamppost???


----------



## Firefly (18 Oct 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> I can't figure out who is acting more idiotically, the person who without thinking puts themselves into danger; or the judge who is given to reflect on the case and makes decisions like these! Different kinds of stupid maybe.



Don't forget the parents either for their "parenting"


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> What is perfectly safe?



I couldn't say. All I know is that you said the trams were perfectly safe everywhere else.



Leo said:


> But what if someone crawled out in front of your car while you were stopped at traffic lights?



What if someone crawled out in front of my car? There is no requirement for me to have lights and mirrors, or heat sensors working under my car. I would have a strong defence against any liability. 
But if it could be shown that I didn't have adequate visual systems in operation (say a dirty windscreen hampering vision) then it is arguable that if I had clear vision I may have spotted the stupid person crawling under my car and thus prevented an accident.



Leo said:


> Yet you are suggesting the trams need more cameras, mirrors or procedures to stop people doing incredibly stupid things.



I am not. Im suggesting, based on the article, that adequate visual systems were not in place, meaning there appears to have been a deficiency of such systems and it is possible that if the tram had been in required working order (ie adequate visual systems) the tram driver may have had the opportunity to spot the child, and not move the tram.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> So your concern is the liability of the company, not the safety of those engaging in dangerous and criminal behaviour. It that correct?



No. My concern is neither. Im simply trying to establish the basis on which the award was made. The article, and the subsequent reported vitriol aimed at the claimant suggests she got the award for her stupidity. 
Im suggesting that the award was made on the basis of the claim that the visual systems in place on the tram were inadequate and had there been adequate systems in place it may have prevented the injury.
Its not a case of adding to safety and visual systems, but rather there was a deficiency in the legally required safety and visual systems. In which its possible the tram should not have been allowed to operate that day.
But like I said, I dont have the full judgement to hand so I can only speculate as to the reasons of the award.



Purple said:


> In practical terms how can a driver,



If the required safety standards, systems and procedures are activated and operating as required, it is, in my view, highly likely no liability would have been attributed to the company.
It sounds like to me, that a report of the incident highlighted a deficiency in such systems and it was on that basis the award was made. 
Again, im only speculating, but I cannot think of another reason why the award was made.


----------



## Leo (18 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I couldn't say. All I know is that you said the trams were perfectly safe everywhere else.



So how then are you in a position to say there is a 'genuine flaw in safety standards'?



WolfeTone said:


> What if someone crawled out in front of my car? There is no requirement for me to have lights and mirrors, or heat sensors working under my car.



Just as there's no requirement for Luas drivers to perform idiot checks. 




WolfeTone said:


> But if it could be shown that I didn't have adequate visual systems in operation (say a dirty windscreen hampering vision)



Dirty windscreens are irrelevant. The issue here is someone deliberately endangering themselves in a position out of the field of view of the driver. 



WolfeTone said:


> ...it is possible that if the tram had been in required working order (ie adequate visual systems)



So you are now suggesting the tram was not in working order or did not meet the required EU safety standards?


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> So how then are you in a position to say there is a 'genuine flaw in safety standards'?



Im not, no more than you are in a position to say the trams are perfectly safe. 
Im speculating that the award was made on basis that there were inadequate visual systems in operation. 



Leo said:


> Just as there's no requirement for Luas drivers to perform idiot checks.



Of course not. Nobody said there was.
There is, id imagine, a requirement to perform routine safety checks. But if the systems and equipment required to be activated and assist in those checks are not working, then such checks will be hampered increasing the possibility of injury. 
Again, im only speculating, on the basis of what was reported.
I can't think of another reason why the award was made, can you? 



Leo said:


> The issue here is someone deliberately endangering themselves in a position out of the field of view of the driver.



The field view of the driver is completely relevant. It is claimed that the field view of the tram driver was somewhat impeded by the failure to activate adequate visual systems. 



Leo said:


> So you are now suggesting the tram was not in working order or did not meet the required EU safety standards?



Im suggesting the award was made on a failure to employ and/or activate adequate visual systems. 
Again, im only speculating, I dont have the judgement to hand. But I cant think of any other reason why the award was made, can you?


----------



## Purple (18 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Im not, no more than you are in a position to say the trams are perfectly safe.
> Im speculating that the award was made on basis that there were inadequate visual systems in operation.


LUAS trans are run by Transdev and maintained by Alstom. Both are international companies. The Trams are made by Alstom in France. They comply with EU safety standards which include visual systems in place for the driver. They have sold  more than 2000 of them in over 50 cities across the world. The Trams are checked every day before they start operating to ensure that there is nothing wrong with them. 

Unless the Judge is a Tram design engineer with a specialist competence in safety systems I fail to see how he can have decided that the Tram design is intrinsically unsafe. If, for some reason, he was in fact in a position to draw such a technical conclusion then Alstom would have stopped the use of their 2000+ trams around the world.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Oct 2019)

So I did a bit more searching on this. The reason why there is no judgement is because the court awarded nothing. 
All accusations against the judge are false. In fact, the judge suggested that if the case had gone to trial it was likely the defendant would have ended up with nothing! 

The award was made by Veoila, the owners of Transdev who operate the LUAS.









						Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m
					

Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> The Trams are checked every day before they start operating to ensure that there is nothing wrong with them.



According to the report in previous post, the cameras used to combat the problem of tram surfing were not operating that day.


----------



## Firefly (18 Oct 2019)

Transdev obviously came to an assessment that it was safer to pay out €550,000 than to risk a much higher award being made against them depending on the judge

_"These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial."_









						Woman in ‘Luas surfing’ case initially said claim worth €4m
					

Rebecca Kelly, who received more than €550,000 for injuries, conceded her own actions played a significant role in the incident




					www.irishtimes.com
				




That the initial claim was for $4m and that the judge suggested that if the case had gone to trial it was likely the defendant would have ended up with nothing just shows what kind of compo culture exists. Rewarding stupidity and recklessness. I would think it more just for her to be prosecuted for admitting her tram surfing.


----------



## WolfeTone (18 Oct 2019)

Firefly said:


> Rewarding stupidity and recklessness



Yes, these international companies need to stand up for themselves and not allow 13yr old girls bully or intimidate them into handing over €€€'s .



Firefly said:


> These assessments incorporate multiple factors including actuarial assessments of the monetary impact of an injury on a plaintiff as well as legal assessments of what award a particular judge is likely to make if a case went to trial."



I do hope this assessment was a once off and that the assessors didn't get their P45's. 
Everyone cocks up from time to time.




Firefly said:


> I would think it more just for her to be prosecuted for admitting her tram surfing.



Prosecute! A 13yr old girl!! For doing what generations of kids have done in the past - jump a ride on slow moving vehicles. 

I dont think that is the answer. 

The only reason this woman is being targeted is because Veoila settled with her for €500,000.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, these international companies need to stand up for themselves and not allow 13yr old girls bully or intimidate them into handing over €€€'s .



I couldn't agree more.

I do understand that you meant it sarcastically.

It may not be 13 year old that are bullying the international companies but our deeply compromised legal system.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Oct 2019)

cremeegg said:


> It may not be 13 year old that are bullying the international companies but our deeply compromised legal system.



Interesting.

To target 13yr olds, or even that young mother,  as has been the case, for some unsubstantiated grievance that the rest of general public have in paying higher premiums because of alleged 'compo culture', it might be worthwhile examing some other detail beyond the eye-catching, sales pumping headlines.

It would be interesting to hear how is the legal system has been, or is compromised?

Certainly I think such sentiment is not without merit. But I do think that litigation, in the arena of compensation for injury, is driven primarily by the legal profession itself and, more deceitfully, the insurance industry itself.
It is a cash-cow for payouts, commission, fees etc, all to be pocketed by those leading the charge.
The insurance Industry can claim that higher and higher premiums as consequence of all these claims, but in reality it is just profit gorging.
In 2015, with no-claims, no penalty points, my car insurance went up 25%. When I questioned my insurer they told me it was because so many cars had been written off in the floods the year before.
I did some searching, and sure enough up to 80 cars were written off in flooding incidents the previous year.
This is out of a stock of some 2million in this country. The maths doesn't add up.

Pearse Doherty, TD, is doing great work in the Dáil trying to expose the machinations of the insurance industry. Unfortunately, not too many headlines.

It is clear to me that there are nefarious practices in the compensation arena that on the face of it sound costly to Joe Soap et al, but in the background there is a lucrative and profit driven system at play that gives scant regard for the welfare of its victims. I would almost sense a US type style of litigation for compensation embedding itself here.
This can only be facilitated by our law-makers and our legal system, no doubt with representations from the insurance industry itself.

Instead, from the media headlines, young mothers with brain injuries are vilified. Or 12yr olds who are scalded in cafes.

Notwithstanding the reality of fraudulent claims, they are a penny a dozen, relative to awards (or more frequently, settlements) made to keep decisions out of courts and judgements held against defendants.
There is a reason for this, the legal system is being compromised or manipulated in some way. Not by 12 and 13yrs olds, but by people far more in tuned with the entire system.


----------



## Firefly (21 Oct 2019)

_"A retired psychiatric nurse who was injured in a car crash four years ago and slipped in a supermarket a few months later was awarded over €100,000 in compensation yesterday."

"Some *€88,000 plus costs* was the award in respect of a fall at Wilton Shopping Centre on March 2, 2016, believed to have been caused by *yoghurt/ice cream on the floor.*"_









						€108k for psychiatric nurse's injuries in fall and car crash
					

A retired psychiatric nurse who was injured in a car crash four years ago and slipped in a supermarket a few months later was awarded over €100,000 in compensation yesterday.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




She seems to be quite unlucky.....


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> But I cant think of any other reason why the award was made, can you?



Yes, because that's how insurance companies limit potential liability.  Look at the Pat McDonagh campaign, companies don't get the opportunity to defend such actions as they see fit, the insurance companies dictate.


----------



## Firefly (21 Oct 2019)

And on it goes...

*€170k awarded in case where €80 damage done to car bumper*

_In another recent case, an Aviva customer rear-ended another car and caused €80 damage to one car. “Some time after the accident, which is not unusual, we were presented with two personal injury claims,” Mr Farrell said. The first claim went to court, where the person was awarded €105,000. The plaintiff’s lawyer submitted a bill for €98,000 that was negotiated down to €65,000.

Committee chairman John McGuinness intervened to question whether he had heard the car damage cost correctly: “€80, you said?”

“Yes, €80 damage,” Mr Farrell replied. “To a bumper.”_









						€170k awarded in case where €80 damage done to car bumper - Oireachtas hears about insurance payouts
					

Insurance premiums won't fall significantly until Ireland stops being a country where fraudsters can stage accidents with impunity, company chiefs have told an Oireachtas committee.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Firefly (21 Oct 2019)

_"We have a case of a businessman who burns down his premises. We plead fraud in open court. We have to defend that case on behalf of innocent policyholders. We are forced to spend 21 days in the High Court at a cost of over €1m."

He said the man in that case "simply walked away" and the €1m legal bill drove up premiums for all SME policyholders._









						Premiums won't fall until fraudsters are stopped, insurance chiefs claim
					

Insurance premiums won't fall significantly until Ireland stops allowing fraudsters to stage accidents with impunity, company chiefs have claimed.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Firefly (21 Oct 2019)

_"That is a huge magnet. We have people who simply come into this country with no other purpose than to commit fraud," said Aviva's head of claims, John Farrell.

He said Aviva was "fully defending" a case against an Englishman who is seeking compensation for his own single-car accident in Ireland - and was asked to return to Ireland to confirm his injuries. "He committed another single- car accident on the day of the medical," Mr Farrell said._









						Premiums won't fall until fraudsters are stopped, insurance chiefs claim
					

Insurance premiums won't fall significantly until Ireland stops allowing fraudsters to stage accidents with impunity, company chiefs have claimed.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Firefly (21 Oct 2019)

_FIVE PEOPLE HAVE been arrested in an operation involving suspected bogus insurance claims.  









						Five arrested following investigation into suspected bogus 'slips and falls' insurance claims
					

Search warrants were executed at a number of solicitor’s offices, gardaí said.




					www.thejournal.ie
				



_


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> Yes, because that's how insurance companies limit potential liability. Look at the Pat McDonagh campaign, companies don't get the opportunity to defend such actions as they see fit, the insurance companies dictate.



This issue has already popped up in this thread. It seems to be a glaring deficit in natural justice for defendants. 
In whose interest is it that an insurance company dictates who, or who cannot defend such actions? 
The thrust of many of the posts here is to target the claimants, implying fraudulent and criminal behaviour. While no doubt such criminality exists, I do not think it unreasonable that people who suffer brain injuries or scalding may consider that had some standard safety procedures been implemented that such procedures may have gone some wat to preventing injury, regardless of the irresponsibility or stupidity or naivety of the actions of some in contributing to that injury. 
€500,000+ sounds an outlandish sum to pay anyone considering the detail provided in the tram-surfing case. Albeit, the full detail is not known. 
But the claimant is not to blame for the large settlement. She has engaged in a process where, it now seems apparent, that the defense of any actions is taken out of the hands of the defendant and to be determined by insurance companies. 
In more than one incidence, it is highly questionable as to why no defense was made at all. 
In the meantime, those that pursue claims and are awarded are targeted for vitriol, even if the substance of their claim quite often carries some merit, if not necessarily the subsequent award attributed to it.


----------



## Leo (21 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> In whose interest is it that an insurance company dictates who, or who cannot defend such actions?



In their own interests of course. 



WolfeTone said:


> The thrust of many of the posts here is to target the claimants, implying fraudulent and criminal behaviour.



With >90% of whiplash claimants ceasing treatment as soon as the case is settled, it suggests either our legal system is far more effective than our medical system at treating soft tissue injuries, or these claimants are exaggerating or fabricating injuries.


----------



## Purple (21 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> implying fraudulent and criminal behaviour. While no doubt such criminality exists,



Such criminality? It seems that 90% of whiplash cases are exaggerated or fabricated;



Leo said:


> With >90% of whiplash claimants ceasing treatment as soon as the case is settled, it suggests either our legal system is far more effective than our medical system at treating soft tissue injuries, or these claimants are exaggerating or fabricating injuries.


----------



## Firefly (21 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> With >90% of whiplash claimants ceasing treatment as soon as the case is settled, it suggests either our legal system is far more effective than our medical system at treating soft tissue injuries, or these claimants are exaggerating or fabricating injuries.



The average payout for whiplash is 17K or thereabouts. _That's about 350 visits to a physio_. Assuming someone in pain needed to go to a physio twice a week it would take them over 6 1/2 years of treatment. Seems reasonable to me


----------



## cremeegg (21 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> In whose interest is it that an insurance company dictates who, or who cannot defend such actions?



As it is the insurance Company that has to pay any award, it is up to the Insurance Company how or if to present a defence.



WolfeTone said:


> She has engaged in a process where, it now seems apparent, that the defense of any actions is taken out of the hands of the defendant and to be determined by insurance companies.



'It now seems' ? This has always been the case. It is the Insurance Company which is the defendant in these cases, and the conduct of the defence is in their hands. The insured party has no direct involvement in the case, that's why people pay for insurance.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> In their own interests of course.



Indeed, and the defendant? What about their interests, facing into higher premiums for something that could have been defended? 



Leo said:


> With >90% of whiplash claimants ceasing treatment as soon as the case is settled, it suggests either our legal system is far more effective than our medical system at treating soft tissue injuries, or these claimants are exaggerating or fabricating injuries.



Indeed, no doubt. But Im asking, _why _are there so many of these type of claimants? Is it because the insurance industry will settle, rather than defend their customers?









						Insurance firms accused of ‘breaking the law by not reporting fraudulent claims’
					

Sinn Fein’s Pearse Doherty told the companies they have a legal obligation to report suspicions of fraud.




					www.thejournal.ie
				




Pearse Doherty, questioning the lack of reporting of suspected fraudulent claims to Gardai despite there being a legal obligation to do so. 

Not only do insurance companies not defend their customers, they dont even report fraudulent claims as legally required to do so. 

Does anyone know why?


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Oct 2019)

Curious as to how many of the cases that were reported by insurance companies for suspected fradulent behaviour were investigated by the Gardai and led to convictions?


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Oct 2019)

cremeegg said:


> As it is the insurance Company that has to pay any award, it is up to the Insurance Company how or if to present a defence.



Which, it appears, they tend more often than not, not to do. Why? 



cremeegg said:


> It is the Insurance Company which is the defendant in these cases,



I don't think I could agree with that. I stand open to correction, but if I cause an accident due to my negligence, it will be me that is sued, not my insurance company. My insurance company is just there to cover my financial liability. 
Thats why I pay insurance.



cremeegg said:


> The insured party has no direct involvement in the case, that's why people pay for insurance.



The insured party has no direct involvement in the case, if the case does not go to court. 
If the case were defended in a trial, of course the insured party would have direct involvement.


----------



## Purple (22 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Pearse Doherty, questioning the lack of reporting of suspected fraudulent claims to Gardai despite there being a legal obligation to do so.
> 
> Not only do insurance companies not defend their customers, they dont even report fraudulent claims as legally required to do so.
> 
> Does anyone know why?


It’s up to the courts to decide if a case is fraudulent. Why don’t judges instruct that proceedings are brought against the claimant?

It is also the law that judges are required to dismiss cases if a plaintiff knowingly gives, or causes to be given, false or misleading evidence. The same applies to knowingly swearing a false or misleading affidavit. How often does that happen?



The Shinners have no credibility in anything; there is still blood on their shoes.

It’s funny to head them talking about the Gardai; it wasn’t so long ago that they were blowing them up.


----------



## Leo (22 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Indeed, and the defendant? What about their interests, facing into higher premiums for something that could have been defended?



When you purchase one of their policies, you agree to them deciding your fate. 



WolfeTone said:


> Indeed, no doubt. But Im asking, _why _are there so many of these type of claimants? Is it because the insurance industry will settle, rather than defend their customers?



It appears to be easy money with little or no downside.


----------



## Firefly (22 Oct 2019)

There are various stakeholders in all of this:

(1) Those making a claim 
(2) Lawyers representing those making a claim
(3) Insurance companies 
(4) Judges 
(5) Other policy holders

(1) & (2) have no downside risk in bringing a claim forward except for their time
(3) Ends up paying in whatever the outcome
(4) Beyond reproach
(5) Shafted in all outcomes through higher premiums

Currently where cases are dismissed and costs are awarded against the plaintiff, there is probably little or no chance of the insurance company getting their payment. How about the lawyer representing the plaintiff has to pay the fees and then they in turn get payment from the plaintiff? That would surely make the lawyers think twice....

We could go round in circles appointing the blame, however one thing is for sure - if the awards were drastically cut and/or there were repercussions for groups (1) and (2) in bringing fraudulent cases, the rest of us in group (5) wouldn't be shafted.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> It’s up to the courts to decide if a case is fraudulent. Why don’t judges instruct that proceedings are brought against the claimant?



I think the point is being made that cases are frequently settled before a trial commences.



Purple said:


> It is also the law that judges are required to dismiss cases if a plaintiff knowingly gives, or causes to be given, false or misleading evidence. The same applies to knowingly swearing a false or misleading affidavit. How often does that happen?



To best of my knowledge, I know of no single case where evidence put in front of judge was proven to be false and misleading that wasnt dismissed as evidence or collapsed a case entirely. 



Purple said:


> The Shinners have no credibility in anything; there is still blood on their shoes.



You have gone political, that serves no purpose. If it was a FF, FG, Lab, politician etc, the point remains the same. Insurance companies are not reporting suspected fraudulent claims to Gardai as they are legally obliged to do.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> When you purchase one of their policies, you agree to them deciding your fate.



Sounds like a gaping flaw in natural justice. The removal of an individuals right to defend their name and integrity in court against potentially false accusations. 
All in the interest that insurance companies can reduce potentially high awards to a minimum.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> It appears to be easy money with little or no downside.



You have to wonder how, between legislators, the legal profession, lobbyists for the insurance industry and business in general, have managed to devise a system of litigation that anyone can claim for almost anything and be almost certain of getting easy money out of it.
I suspect the easy money is not limited to the claimants.
If I was an insurance 'assessor' for a tram company facing a €4m lawsuit and managed to avoid liability by settling for €500,000, 1/8th of the potential cost, I might be inclined to think that a fat bonus would be on my way.
But that's just the cynic in me.


----------



## Peanuts20 (22 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> To best of my knowledge, I know of no single case where evidence put in front of judge was proven to be false and misleading that wasnt dismissed as evidence or collapsed a case entirely.



Here's one for starters








						Judge blasts lawyers as €300k crash claims dismissed as fraud
					

A judge has said some solicitors should be more selective about who they accept as clients as she dismissed five fraudulent personal injury claims for up to €300,000.




					www.herald.ie
				




I've seen a fair few cases in the last 12 months in the papers as being thrown out, judges are being more assertive on this from what I've read. Having said that, and having been called to appear as a witness twice in the Four Courts on a claim, I remember sitting outside the courts and you couldn't help but evesdrop on some of the conversations between solicitors and clients and there is always an element of negotiation going on before it gets into court. In fairness, I presume it is cheaper for the insurance company to settle on the steps of the court then inside it from a legal cost perspective.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Oct 2019)

Thats my point, if evidence is false and misleading a judge will dismiss it.


----------



## Firefly (22 Oct 2019)

Peanuts20 said:


> Here's one for starters
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Surely you would expect that if those cases were deemed fraudulent the plaintiffs should be prosecuted...


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Oct 2019)

_"Judge Linnane directed that all evidence gathered by the insurer be forwarded to the DPP."_

Given the apparent propensity of insurers not to report suspected fraudulent claims, it would be interesting to know if they complied with the direction of the court.


----------



## Firefly (22 Oct 2019)

I present.....claims.ie Your one-stop-shop!!!






						Claims Ireland - Compensation Claims Made Simple
					

Online portal of information on claims with online public case assessment service.



					www.claims.ie
				




My favourite:

*Toddler awarded €10,000 after ambulance rolls into tree*

_"A 16-month-old child was injured when an ambulance, in which she was a passenger, rolled backwards into a tree, the Circuit Civil Court heard Tuesday."

"Barrister Paul Gallagher told the court that Jessica Abram, of Moore Street, Kilrush, Co Clare, suffered psychological injuries as a result of the accident on 6th July 2016. "_

That's SOME diagnosis right there.


----------



## Purple (22 Oct 2019)

a 16 month old... we really are blessed in this country with some great doctors. Hardly surprising since we have the best teachers in the world*. 

(*source: any teacher you talk to)


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Given the apparent propensity of insurers not to report suspected fraudulent claims, it would be interesting to know if they complied with the direction of the court.



I think it would be more interesting to see what happened with the ones that were reported to the Gardai before sending any more their way...
Allianz reported *48 cases of fraud *to the gardaí since June 2018. Axa have reported 50 cases since 2013.

Gardai have only been recording cases of insurance fraud on Pulse since October 2018.








						Gardaí have only just begun to record cases of insurance fraud
					

A top garda has revealed that the force has only recently started to record instances of insurance fraud on its systems.




					www.independent.ie
				




There have only been eight perjury convictions since 2005, out of 22 recorded offences. 








						Personal injury fraud: A consequence free crime?
					






					www.rte.ie
				




I think it's pretty obvious why more cases have not been reported to the Gardai.
Having said that, I do think insurers should be reporting more to the Gardai, even if nothing happens with them, purely from a statistics point of view to highlight the extent of the issue.


----------



## WolfeTone (22 Oct 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> I think it would be more interesting to see what happened with the ones that were reported to the Gardai before sending any more their way...



That would certainly be interesting too.

Here is a somewhat eye-opening article attached to www.claims.ie






						Insurers not Telling the Full Story | Claims Ireland
					

Online portal of information on claims with online public case assessment service.



					www.claims.ie
				





"_figures from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) and the Courts Service showing no significant change in the number of claims, the many decisions of the Court of Appeal reducing compensation awards and the fact that court cost awards have been slashed over the past 10 years."

"PIAB, and the Book of Quantum which sets guidelines for compensation, are essentially creations of the insurance industry."_


----------



## Delboy (22 Oct 2019)

Boy who fell off bike and cut lip after allegedly hitting pot hole awarded €65,000 damages
					

A BOY who injured his lip when he fell off his bike after the front wheel allegedly hit a pot hole has settled his High Court action for €65,000.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Peanuts20 (23 Oct 2019)

Another case thrown out yesterday









						Taxi driver who had to slam on his brakes to avoid car loses €60k personal injury claim
					

The only thing taxi driver Bernard Gaffney hit in April 2017 was his brakes yet the incident generated five personal injury claims totalling €300,000, Judge John O’Connor heard in the Circuit Civil Court today.




					www.breakingnews.ie


----------



## Peanuts20 (23 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> a 16 month old... we really are blessed in this country with some great doctors. Hardly surprising since we have the best teachers in the world*.
> 
> (*source: any teacher you talk to)



In all fairness, in this case the ambulance driver was clearly at fault (didn't put the handbrake on), the kid was on a trolley and nearly got knocked out of it and is now afraid of sirens and ambulances. PTSD (which this sounds like) is a recognised ailment. Took me 6 months to get one of my smallies sleeping again on her own after the smoke alarm went off one night. She still winces 10 yrs later if it starts beeping when the battery is running low.


----------



## Sunny (23 Oct 2019)

Peanuts20 said:


> In all fairness, in this case the ambulance driver was clearly at fault (didn't put the handbrake on), the kid was on a trolley and nearly got knocked out of it and is now afraid of sirens and ambulances. PTSD (which this sounds like) is a recognised ailment. Took me 6 months to get one of my smallies sleeping again on her own after the smoke alarm went off one night. She still winces 10 yrs later if it starts beeping when the battery is running low.



Wait until she decides to sue you.!!


----------



## WolfeTone (23 Oct 2019)

Judging by the cases highlighted here, and the summary of cases listed on www.claims.ie it seems to me, that if a case goes to trial it is more likely to be dismissed, or awards made that are comparatively modest to settlements made out of court.
Yet it is the insurance industry that appears to be settling cases out of court more often than not rather than defending them in court. 
Why would the insurance industry be offering settlements out of court rather than challenging claims in court when the evidence suggests awards made in court are far more modest than out of court settlements, and judges appear to be inclined to dismiss the more outlandish claims?


----------



## Sunny (23 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Judging by the cases highlighted here, and the summary of cases listed on www.claims.ie it seems to me, that if a case goes to trial it is more likely to be dismissed, or awards made that are comparatively modest to settlements made out of court.
> Yet it is the insurance industry that appears to be settling cases out of court more often than not rather than defending them in court.
> Why would the insurance industry be offering settlements out of court rather than challenging claims in court when the evidence suggests awards made in court are far more modest than out of court settlements, and judges appear to be inclined to dismiss the more outlandish claims?



What is that website? It said it is funded by public donations but I don't buy that for a second... Looks like a front for Ambulance Chasing Solicitors......


----------



## Firefly (23 Oct 2019)

Sunny said:


> What is that website? It said it is funded by public donations but I don't buy that for a second... Looks like a front for Ambulance Chasing Solicitors......



That's exactly my thinking. Links to claims are from national papers (albeit edited!) but anything such as https://www.claims.ie/insurance_pemiums_up are probably written by themselves!


----------



## Firefly (30 Oct 2019)

_A judge has heard that the same Co Dublin address used by a woman claiming €60,000 damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a car crash had been used in five other road traffic accident claims in a 14 month period.

Mr McMorrow told the court that Mr Gaybys had been the driver in four different car accidents out of which there had been 19 claims._









						Same address used for six road traffic accident claims in 14 months, court heard
					

A judge has heard that the same Co Dublin address used by a woman claiming €60,000 damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a car crash had been used in five other road traffic accident claims in a 14 month period.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Oct 2019)

Another excellent example showing if a case is put before the courts that there is a good chance of it being dismissed or withdrawn if it is based on apparent fraudulent grounds. 

_"Judge O'Connor said that although he had dismissed  a number of other damages claims in the last few weeks because claimants had been unable to prove their cases  Ms Baltcepures claim had been one of the most shocking he had seen" ._

The question must be, why, if there are apparently high levels of fraudulent claims been made, do insurance companies settle so often, so quickly, without proper investigation or challenging these cases in court? 
It seems reasonable to me that if a fraudulent claims case goes to court it can quite often be unpicked and subsequently dismissed by court, as is often the case.


----------



## Sunny (30 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Another excellent example showing if a case is put before the courts that there is a good chance of it being dismissed or withdrawn if it is based on apparent fraudulent grounds.
> 
> _"Judge O'Connor said that although he had dismissed  a number of other damages claims in the last few weeks because claimants had been unable to prove their cases  Ms Baltcepures claim had been one of the most shocking he had seen" ._
> 
> ...



Because do you know the cost of bringing claims to court? If insurance companies brought every single suspected fraudulent claim to court, they would face huge legal costs that would be greater than the cost of settling. Insurance companies aren't stupid.  They accept a % even a large % of claims are fraudulent or at best excessive but they also know that settling most of them is cheaper than fighting them in court. Even if costs were awarded the claimant, the insurance company still faces huge legal costs to recoup the costs from the claimant if they manage to at all. Then there is the money they have to spend investigating the claims. The experts they have to hire to look at the claims. Not to mention the time and manpower needed. In the meantime genuine claims get lost in the quagmire ….

The fault for all this lies with Insurance Companies, Legal profession, medical profession but mostly the public. We all know cases where someone has claimed thousands for some sort of soft tissue injury that miraculously clears when the cheque arrives.... and everyone has gone well done....It is now part of our culture and changing it will be nigh on impossible.


----------



## Firefly (30 Oct 2019)

Sunny said:


> Because do you know the cost of bringing claims to court? If insurance companies brought every single suspected fraudulent claim to court, they would face huge legal costs that would be greater than the cost of settling. Insurance companies aren't stupid.  They accept a % even a large % of claims are fraudulent or at best excessive but they also know that settling most of them is cheaper than fighting them in court. Even if costs were awarded the claimant, the insurance company still faces huge legal costs to recoup the costs from the claimant if they manage to at all. Then there is the money they have to spend investigating the claims. The experts they have to hire to look at the claims. Not to mention the time and manpower needed. In the meantime genuine claims get lost in the quagmire ….



+1. Imagine how many fraudulent cases slip through the net!


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Oct 2019)

Sunny said:


> do you know the cost of bringing claims to court?



No, do you?



Sunny said:


> If insurance companies brought every single suspected fraudulent claim to court, they would face huge legal costs that would be greater than the cost of settling



That is subjective. The evidence produced on this thread alone suggests the courts are alot less lenient in making awards than the insurance companies themselves are at settling claims.
It would act as great deterrent to fraudsters if they knew that more likely than not, the case will go before a court.
This would reduce costs dramatically.



Sunny said:


> They accept a % even a large % of claims are fraudulent or at best excessive but they also know that settling most of them is cheaper than fighting them in court.



The evidence on this thread alone suggests differently.



Sunny said:


> Even if costs were awarded the claimant, the insurance company still faces huge legal costs to recoup the costs from the claimant if they manage to at all.



I agree that it makes sense not to spend more money on futile efforts to recoup costs.



Sunny said:


> Then there is the money they have to spend investigating the claims. The experts they have to hire to look at the claims. Not to mention the time and manpower needed.



Wait a second, are you suggesting that these apparent fraudulent claims are not investigated?
How can the insurance company determine they are fraudulent so?


----------



## Sunny (30 Oct 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> No, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No offence but I have no interest in going around in circles on this. It's already been done on this thread and on others. You have your view on this and that's fair enough. It's just a repeat of the same old arguments at this stage.....


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Oct 2019)

Sunny said:


> No offence but I have no interest in going around in circles on this. It's already been done on this thread and on others. You have your view on this and that's fair enough. It's just a repeat of the same old arguments at this stage.....



No bother at all. I am in agreement with you when you lay blame at the insurance companies and legal profession.
Im not so convinced that the public or medical profession is to blame, or at least nowhere near the extent of insurance companies.


----------



## Firefly (30 Oct 2019)

_Girl (6) who fractured elbow after slipping on gravel outside home awarded €43,000_









						Girl (6) who fractured elbow after slipping on gravel outside home awarded €43,000
					

A six-year-old girl who fractured her elbow after she slipped on loose gravel outside her Dublin home has been awarded damages of €43,000 in the Circuit Civil Court.




					www.independent.ie
				




_A six-year-old girl who fractured her elbow after she slipped on loose gravel outside her Dublin home has been awarded damages of €43,000 in the Circuit Civil Court. 

settlement offer of €43,000 from Dublin City Council and Irish Water  _

I'm pretty sure many, many houses have some loose gravel outside.....


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Oct 2019)

Surely the issue is not loose gravel, but rather an injury to a six year old child could have been easily prevented had the loose gravel been properly attended to?


----------



## Firefly (1 Nov 2019)

10 grand for a frozen shoulder

_She told the court she had chosen not to use a footstool provided by Ryanair to assist employees reaching higher shelves, as she felt it would have been unsafe._









						Ryanair must pay €10,000 to hurt employee
					

A Ryanair employee has been awarded €10,000 damages against the airline for injuries suffered at work.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2019)

It could be worse; iPhones make you gay in Russia!


----------



## Purple (1 Nov 2019)

Firefly said:


> 10 grand for a frozen shoulder
> 
> _She told the court she had chosen not to use a footstool provided by Ryanair to assist employees reaching higher shelves, as she felt it would have been unsafe._
> 
> ...


Nobody is responsible for their own actions in this country. It seems that infantilizing adults is a good thing.

I tell the guys in work that they have had the same manual handling, ergonomics and health and safety training I have had so they should take responsibility for their own actions and that it is their duty to report anything that is unsafe. If the woman in question here felt that the footstool provided was unsafe why didn't she tell anyone? Was is actually a footstool or a one or two step ladder?


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> Nobody is responsible for their own actions in this country.



Ryanair were held responsible.


----------



## Delboy (3 Nov 2019)

I love this story. It really captures the essence of the Irish compo culture. And the insight into the behaviour of the Solicitors is just beautiful.
And it also contains a bit of disregard for the rules of the road....the woman in question has truly become 'more Irish than the Irish themselves' if I may use that old saying!









						'If you're injured, then I'm injured' - Woman filmed jogging despite €60,000 claim for crash injuries
					

A WOMAN who lost a €60,000 injury claim after she was filmed jogging says too many people are taking civil cases in Ireland.




					www.independent.ie
				





> In a lengthy interview as part of an investigation into insurance claims, Ms Lamidi this week admitted to the Sunday World:
> The accident was just “a little crash”;
> 
> She only launched her claim because the other motorist claimed against her;
> ...


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2019)

Im particularly impressed that the insurance company decided to challenge this in the courts, and in turn, it gets dismissed. 
Insurance companies really should consider this option more often rather than paying out large sums without investigation and jacking up our premiums.


----------



## Firefly (4 Nov 2019)

Delboy said:


> 'If you're injured, then I'm injured' - Woman filmed jogging despite €60,000 claim for crash injuries
> 
> 
> A WOMAN who lost a €60,000 injury claim after she was filmed jogging says too many people are taking civil cases in Ireland.
> ...


What a story

_“The video disqualified me. Where did I jog? They said I was jogging.
“Me jogging? I was crossing the main road to the shop. I was just walking. I never ran. I was just walking.”
In court Mr Justice Raymond Groarke said the video of Ms Lamidi clearly showed her jogging across the street
“I will never blame the judge. I don’t know the judge but he’s doing his case. The judge was frustrated and tired._

I'd be frustrated too!

_Despite losing the case and having costs awarded against her, Ms Lamidi said she was no worse off financially as she didn’t pay them. “I can’t pay. Where would I get money?”_

Zero downside for making spurious claims, wasting court time and jacking up insurance quotes for everyone else

_She said she considered taking a High Court appeal over the Civil Court decision but decided against it after receiving advice. “My spiritual father gave me a prophesy. He told me Esther if I was you I would leave the case. He said my bill would be higher. He said just let go.”_

That's gold


_Ms Lamidi told the Sunday World she didn’t think the crash was serious and only launched her civil action because the man in the other car made a claim through her insurance.
“I didn’t call my insurance so quick. I didn’t think it was going to go far. Then I got a letter saying about injury [to the other driver]. I said injury, what is this? Then it’s ‘OK, if you have injury I have injury too’.”_

And then: 
_“It’s good to tell the truth and let the truth set you free."_

More gold


_This week Ms Lamidi told the Sunday World there are too many civil cases here.
“It’s too much. It’s too much. I don’t know how they do it. This matter of claim, claim, claim is not good. Many people are suffering. Other people are claiming.”_

And more gold


----------



## Delboy (4 Nov 2019)

That it takes the Sunday World to carry out some real journalism in the compo area says a lot about our media right now, especially the variety that is behind a pay wall and has notions of itself!
Less opinion/comment and more basic journalism please.


----------



## sidzer (4 Nov 2019)

Delboy said:


> I love this story. It really captures the essence of the Irish compo culture. And the insight into the behaviour of the Solicitors is just beautiful.
> And it also contains a bit of disregard for the rules of the road....the woman in question has truly become 'more Irish than the Irish themselves' if I may use that old saying!
> 
> 
> ...


Who is going to pick up the tab for this? Why is this woman not prosecuted for making a fraudulent claim? And who advised her and presented 'her case' in the courts?

Are things really that bad in our courts and in the legal profession?


----------



## Delboy (5 Nov 2019)

sidzer said:


> Who is going to pick up the tab for this? Why is this woman not prosecuted for making a fraudulent claim? And who advised her and presented 'her case' in the courts?
> 
> Are things really that bad in our courts and in the legal profession?


I think we all know the answers to those questions...the Irish taxpayer is mostly picking up the tab in one way or another; we don't prosecute that type of thing here as it might mean less business for the legal/medical industry if claim numbers drop; I cannot say for *legal *reasons who advised her .

And yes things really are that bad in our legal profession. Even the Troika gave up on trying to reform them when they were here.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Ryanair were held responsible.


Ryanair isn't a person.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> Ryanair isn't a person.



True, not in the biological sense anyway. But as a body corporate, they were held to be responsible by the court.


----------



## dereko1969 (13 Nov 2019)

This one annoyed me - no mention of any responsibility lying with the parent who didn't supervise their child properly. No visible scarring remaining yet €22k compensation still offered. Insurance companies not challenging this stuff is bananas, what would the child have received in a contested case?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/22000-for-boy-2-who-cut-eye-in-dublin-pharmacy-963456.html


----------



## Purple (13 Nov 2019)

dereko1969 said:


> This one annoyed me - no mention of any responsibility lying with the parent who didn't supervise their child properly. No visible scarring remaining yet €22k compensation still offered. Insurance companies not challenging this stuff is bananas, what would the child have received in a contested case?
> https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/22000-for-boy-2-who-cut-eye-in-dublin-pharmacy-963456.html


Do remember that €22k is chump change to a Judge.


----------



## dereko1969 (13 Nov 2019)

In fairness though the Judge was only asked to approve it, unlikely that Judge wouldn't if the claimant's brief is accepting it.


----------



## Firefly (18 Nov 2019)

_Judge describes €75k defamation case over €1 M&S Bag for Life as 'completely over the top'_









						Judge describes €75k defamation case over €1 M&S Bag for Life as 'completely over the top'
					

A €75,000 damages claim for defamation, over whether a Marks and Spencer customer had paid for a €1 shopping bag, was described by a judge today as completely over the top.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Nov 2019)

It is becoming increasingly apparent, from the examples in this thread, that if insurance companies were to actually challenge the veracity of bogus claims that the probability of having claims reduced or thrown out altogether is reasonably good. 
Some investment in investigation and legal challenges will act as a great deterrent to bogus claims in the first place. 
Its the high probability of insurance companies settling before a trial that is encouraging bogus claims, driving up premiums, increasing profits.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Its the high probability of insurance companies settling before a trial that is encouraging bogus claims, driving up premiums, increasing profits.


That and dishonest people with no integrity or self respect. Don't forget about them.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Nov 2019)

Purple said:


> That and dishonest people with no integrity or self respect. Don't forget about them.



Of course, but there are always people trying to scam systems. Be it insurance fraud, tax evasion, over-charging, price-fixing, etc.
So if the system is being exploited and abused, then implement a system that deters such abuses.
That could be in the way of legislative reform. Also, reading through the examples on this thread, it could also be by way of the insurance industry itself and how it is managing its own affairs.
Higher premiums can generate higher profits.
Between the legal profession and insurance industry there is more than a whiff of system exploitation going on here from both parties.


----------



## Firefly (21 Nov 2019)

_Mother told to pay costs after losing case over toy rattle_









						Mother told to pay costs after losing case over toy rattle
					

A 21-year-old mother who claimed she was defamed when shop staff accused her of stealing a toy rattle for her one-year-old child has been ordered to pay the legal costs of an unsuccessful claim against the shop and its security firm.




					www.independent.ie
				




_"Naomi Sunner's €75,000 defamation claim against Dealz Retailing Ireland was thrown out by Judge Jacqueline Linnane in the Circuit Civil Court yesterday.

A 21-year-old mother who claimed she was defamed when shop staff accused her of stealing a toy rattle for her one-year-old child has been ordered to pay the legal costs of an unsuccessful claim against the shop and its security firm."_

75 grand! How long would it take you to save 75 grand?

We don't know whether she can or will pay Dealz the costs she has been ordered to pay. If she doesn't this is a case of Heads I win, Tails you lose for Dealz. Clearly no disincentive for people to make such claims.


_"The judge ... said people should stop running to their solicitors."_

We need more judges like this!


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Nov 2019)

Firefly said:


> _Mother told to pay costs after losing case over toy rattle_... We don't know whether she can or will pay Dealz the costs she has been ordered to pay. If she doesn't this is a case of Heads I win, Tails you lose for Dealz. Clearly no disincentive for people to make such claims.
> _"The judge ... said people should stop running to their solicitors."_



In the short term no help to Dealz. But in the long run the more decisions like this there are, the more selective solicitors will be on what cases they are taking up. Her solicitor in this case would not have recouped any of their expenses.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Nov 2019)

Firefly said:


> We need more judges like this!



Arguably, there are plenty of judges like this. What we need is insurance companies to contest more claims rather than settling for huge sums before the case goes to trial. 
Even if the insurance company were to lose many cases, mitigating circumstances can always be offered and in turn greatly reducing awards claimed for.


----------



## Seagull (21 Nov 2019)

They should introduce a system where in the extreme piss-taking examples, the plaintiff's solicitor has to pay the defendant's costs if the plaintiff can't.


----------



## Purple (22 Nov 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Between the legal *industry *and insurance industry there is more than a whiff of system exploitation going on here from both parties.


Fixed that bit for you and yes, in general I agree with you.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Nov 2019)

Chief Justice puts Junior Minister back in his box...

The gist of the article is that the minister has been going around saying the committee will do X, Y and Z and the head of the committee says we haven't even  met yet, we don't know what we're going to do so if you're going around promising anything stop...

_The country’s most senior judge has warned politicians seeking to influence the work of a judicial committee on personal injury awards to back off.
Chief Justice Frank Clarke said the long-awaited committee would be totally independent and would decide itself how it goes about its work.
His comments came in a statement announcing the make-up of the committee, which is expected to recalibrate personal injury payout guidelines.
Although he did not name any politician, his remarks are being seen as a rebuke of Junior Finance Minister Michael D’Arcy, who has been under considerable pressure from the business sector over high insurance costs.
The Fine Gael TD said last week that the book of quantum on the top five personal injury claims would be significantly reduced early next year.








						Chief Justice Frank Clarke clashes with minister over injury awards committee - Independent.ie
					

The country’s most senior judge has warned politicians seeking to influence the work of a judicial committee on personal injury awards to back off.




					www.independent.ie
				



_


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Dec 2019)

Some developments being reported by Charlie Weston. The focus clearly on the insurance industry itself and how it operates. 
The recalibration of award levels, being discussed by judges, is expected to reduce the level of awards approved by courts. 

Insurers will be required to provide details of the claims they pay out on and premiums paid by policyholders. 
This is a bugbear of mine. When reports of outlandish amounts are settled, it is invariably reported as the courts making the awards, when in reality the courts are merely approving what the insurance company has agreed to settle on.  
If policyholders can see which companies are settling for large awards it may act as a competitive spur to begin contesting claims.


----------



## Firefly (6 Dec 2019)

_A man who claimed he could no longer carry out manual labour and was unable to raise his arm above his head without pain after his car was rear-ended had his case for damages thrown out when the judge was shown Facebook pictures of the plaintiff participating in a 10km obstacle course. _









						Man suing for injuries has case thrown out after taking part in 10km obstacle course
					

The judge was shown Facebook pictures of the plaintiff participating in a 10km obstacle course, and threw out the case.




					www.irishexaminer.com
				




Must be the insurance company's fault..


----------



## Leo (6 Dec 2019)

Firefly said:


> Must be the insurance company's fault..



I blame the solicitor


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Dec 2019)

Firefly said:


> Must be the insurance company's fault..



So the insurance company investigated the claim?
Then challenged it in court?
And put in front of a judge, the judge threw out the claim?

The insurance company didn't just settle for an extortionate amount seeking the courts approval, in turn, jacking up premiums on businesses and working people?

I can see a positive here.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Dec 2019)

GPs and Lawyers fueling compo culture 

If this is true, then the financial relationships between the GP and the legal firm should be investigated.


----------



## peemac (7 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> GPs and Lawyers fueling compo culture
> 
> If this is true, then the financial relationships between the GP and the legal firm should be investigated.


What do you mean "if"

I'd love to see some "professionals" up in court and charged with being complicit in fraud.

Most in the legal and medical profession are honest, but just like the gardai, there are far too many bad apples


----------



## Purple (9 Dec 2019)

peemac said:


> Most in the legal and medical profession are honest, but just like the gardai, there are far too many bad apples


Just like every other member of society. Doctors and Lawyers are no more or less honest than anyone else. It is when they start believing that they are better that the problems arise. 
I've always said that a plumber working in a house with small children in it, or a childcare assistant in a cheche, is occupying a position of trust far greater than a lawyer or doctor.


----------



## Firefly (9 Dec 2019)

peemac said:


> Most in the legal and medical profession are honest, but just like the gardai, there are far too many bad apples



I agree. However, if the awards weren't so high there would be less incentive for this type of carry on.


----------



## Firefly (10 Dec 2019)

_New laws to crack down on 'compo culture' by jailing people who lie under oath for up to 10 years could be passed by TDs within days.
The Government is moving to fast-track legislation that will seek to put the offence of perjury on a statutory footing for the first time.









						Insurance scammers facing 10 years in jail for perjury - Independent.ie
					

New laws to crack down on 'compo culture' by jailing people who lie under oath for up to 10 years could be passed by TDs within days.




					www.independent.ie
				



_


----------



## Firefly (10 Dec 2019)

_Couple lose €75,000 claim against restaurant for being asked to pay bill_









						Couple lose €75,000 claim against restaurant for being asked to pay bill
					

A couple who claimed they had been defamed by staff who asked them to pay a dinner bill at a pub-restaurant have lost a €75,000 claim but escaped having to pay defence legal costs.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Im not sure about anyone else, but it is obvious to me that if insurance companies invest some time and effort challenging claims they can avoid extortionate damages payouts.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

In the case above they still had the legal costs for their side.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Purple said:


> In the case above they still had the legal costs for their side.



We don't know how much they cost, but in terms of sending a message that dubious claims will be challenged with a reasonable probability that such claims before a judge could be thrown out, it was probably a cost worth bearing.
With a combination of this and new legislation to prosecute perjury we could, be seeing the end of the compo culture, or at least reductions in lawsuits.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> We don't know how much they cost, but in terms of sending a message that dubious claims will be challenged with a reasonable probability that such claims before a judge could be thrown out, it was probably a cost worth bearing.
> With a combination of this and new legislation to prosecute perjury we could, be seeing the end of the compo culture, or at least reductions in lawsuits.



It doesn't matter how much they cost. They still cost the insurance company thousands to defend it and it time consuming. It takes up a judges time. It's take up court services time. It takes up company staff time. It causes stress to company staff and management. And that's just to get to the stage of a judge throwing it out. Cases like this should never come before a court where a judge rules as emphatically as that saying it is simply not defamation to ask someone to pay for a meal. So what solicitor brought that case? Was his decision to bring the peer reviewed? How did he charge the client? Was it no win, no pay which is simply a business model of launching huge amount of lawsuits knowing that one or two will stick. There is more to the culture than a judge throwing out the case. The real problem is what happens before it gets to court in the legal and medical professions. The awards given for successful cases is just one part of it.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> It doesn't matter how much they cost



It does matter, very much so.


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> It does matter, very much so.



No it doesn't. If the insurance company has to pay 50 euro or 50 thousand euro to defend a nuisance lawsuit is not the issue. They still have to defend absolute nonsense cases that members of the legal profession are taking on out of pure greed. Or stupidity. What trained solicitor thinks asking someone to pay for their meal is defamation.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> No it doesn't.



Yes it does.


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

Panto season?


----------



## Sunny (10 Dec 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes it does.



Like I said in the other thread. Pointless engaging with you. Purple, all yours here as well......


----------



## Purple (10 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> Like I said in the other thread. Pointless engaging with you. Purple, all yours here as well......


Oh no it isn't!


----------



## Leo (11 Dec 2019)

Sunny said:


> Like I said in the other thread. Pointless engaging with you. Purple, all yours here as well......



I'll save you both!


----------

