Compo culture

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Here's one for starters
www.herald.ie

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 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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
www.independent.ie

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 www.independent.ie

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

Personal injury fraud: A consequence free crime?

www.rte.ie 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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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."
 
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Wait until she decides to sue you.!!
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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......
 
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.

www.independent.ie

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 www.independent.ie
 
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.
 
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" .

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ….
Click to expand...

+1. Imagine how many fraudulent cases slip through the net!
 
Sunny said:
do you know the cost of bringing claims to court?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Wait a second, are you suggesting that these apparent fraudulent claims are not investigated?
How can the insurance company determine they are fraudulent so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top