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
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...
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.
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......
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excellent example showing if a case is put before the courts that there is a good chance of it being dismissed or withdrawn if it is based on apparent fraudulent grounds.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.
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 ….
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?