Compo culture

"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."


She seems to be quite unlucky.....

WolfeTone said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.”

"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.

"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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

WolfeTone said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

WolfeTone said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

WolfeTone said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

'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.

Leo said:

In their own interests of course.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?


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?

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

WolfeTone said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Leo said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Leo said:

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

Click to expand...

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.