Settling out of court just encourages it

Aer rianta presumably have an insurer who was dealing with the claim. It is in the insurers interests that there are a steady stream of claims, a fair proportion of which (esp. the cheap ones) are successful, on the steps of the court if possible, so they don't have to pay the hearing costs. The madder these successful claims are the better for the insurance companies because then their clients get more and more scared about possible claims and are more willing to pay insurance premiums rather than self insure. The insurance business is an industry like any other and seeks continuing growth, more claims, more growth, higher premiums, bigger profits. Piab suits the insurers because they can get more of the potential pot because they don't have to pay the lawyers. So in reply to the heading on the thread "Settling out of court just encourages it" , absolutely , thats the whole point. Welcome to capitalism.

bearishbull said:

clubman the call to the aer rianta woman was one second by all reports ive read on irish times and indo sites.

Click to expand...

How did she figure out that the caller had a "bin Laden type voice" in one second!?

How would one know it was bomb threat in 1 sec?

you can say what the hoaxer said "there is a bomb in your airport" in one second,but how she perceived this as a "bin laden type" anything i dont know! the only way you would have interreted a one sec seven word call as such would be if you had a built up fear beforehand and how can your employer be responsible for your cognitions???
as for insurance companies they arent that eager to settle or why would they investigate so many claims?? if they didnt fight cases other insurance companies would and then be able to undercut on price,the only way they would be eager to settle all cases on steps would be if they were acting in unison as a cartel .

bearishbull said:

jaysis next you'll have debriefings if a customer gets snotty on the phone ,for 99.99% of people such services wouldnt be required and as the probabilty of this service being required is virtually nil should excessive expense be forced on employers??

Click to expand...

There is no comparison between a bomb threat and a snotty customer. I'm not defending the woman or Aer Rianta here, but from my reading of the articles, it does appear that some simple HR policies could have pre-empted any exposure if implemented effectively.

ramble said:

Aer rianta presumably have an insurer who was dealing with the claim. It is in the insurers interests that there are a steady stream of claims, a fair proportion of which (esp. the cheap ones) are successful, on the steps of the court if possible, so they don't have to pay the hearing costs. The madder these successful claims are the better for the insurance companies because then their clients get more and more scared about possible claims and are more willing to pay insurance premiums rather than self insure.

Click to expand...

This is rubbish. Any claims or settlements are cash gone out the door. This is NOT in the interests of insurance companies, except where they avoided possible larger payments through early settlement.

If there were no claims there would be no market for public/employer liability insurance, no market no profits. My original post may have been a little cynical but the core point is valid. Insurance company operating profits are usually compared on the basis of a percentage of premium income. The premiums are fixed (supposedly) on the basis of the cost of claims. The more the insurance companies pay out the higher the premiums and if they run their operation properly the higher the profits. If they don't put cash out the door they don't get any in.

You might as well blame the umbrella manufacturers for the rain!

If the umbrella manufacturer could make more rain or even make people think that more was comming then he would sell more brollies. Unfortunately he doesn't control the rain but an insurance company in paying out on cases such as the above encourages more claims, as the original thread starter has pointed out.

This is twisted logic. Why have the insurance companies instituted an anti-claim-fraud helpline, if it is their interests to encourage more claims?

As a PR excercise, that is the reason.