Are we too cynical?

[timsabre]

Going O/T here but I disagree. We want insurance companies who are fair. They will pay out when there is a valid claim but will fight your (their) corner when they need to to save you money in the future. The whole settling as soon as somebody waves a threat of legal action thing is tiresome at best!

 

That would be nice, but fairness and justice doesn't really come into it with insurers, for them it's all about risk. If they can avoid a £50K court case with a £12K settlement they may consider that is the most prudent course of action.

.

[Seano]

I'd rather have an insurer who pays out easily than an insurer who does their best not to.

 

Spoken like a man who hasn't been watching his insurance premiums spiralling relentlessly upwards for a decade or more.

 

We'd all prefer an insurer who pays promptly and with a minimum of quibbling when its the right thing to do. Chucking free money at any feckless idiot who's seen a no-win-no-fee ambulance chaser's advert on daytime TV and picked up the phone is something else again.

 

And the habit of automatically settling out of court regardless of the (lack of) merits of the case isn't the worst of it, the insurance companies have also spent years actively encouraging frivolous claims through their participation in the profoundly dodgy practice of 'claims farming'. Much like the worst excesses of the bankers, the focus has been all about the short term profit and don't worry about the longer term or the bigger picture: screw society, just maximise this year's bonus.

[brainwave-generator]

I'd rather have an insurer who pays out easily than an insurer who does their best not to.

 

 

We'd all prefer an insurer who pays promptly and with a minimum of quibbling when its the right thing to do. Chucking free money at any feckless idiot who's seen a no-win-no-fee ambulance chaser's advert on daytime TV and picked up the phone is something else again.

 

And the habit of automatically settling out of court regardless of the (lack of) merits of the case isn't the worst of it, the insurance companies have also spent years actively encouraging frivolous claims through their participation in the profoundly dodgy practice of 'claims farming'. Much like the worst excesses of the bankers, the focus has been all about the short term profit and don't worry about the longer term or the bigger picture: screw society, just maximise this year's bonus.

 

No doubt I want fair insurance, of course. Paul's example casts a light on how silly things can get - when you can simply claim you burnt yourself on a smoke machine 5 years ago with no witnesses and no evidence and still get a payout, things are very wrong. If the companies can even afford to do that, you know they are making serious amounts of money.

 

But if the very bad day came when I dropped something on somebody's head from height, or reversed a forklift truck into somebody, or whatever; I think my mind would be a lot clearer if the insurance company turned around and just paid. It'd certainly be a whole lot less hassle than the insurance company turning around and playing every trick in the box to try to get out of paying, leaving me with the stress of fighting it and the possibility of being personally liable for paying up.

 

My point was not to attempt to justify the malpractices of insurance companies who then use such malpractices as an excuse to up your premium. My point was simply to say that in an industry of evils, I'd take the lesser of two evils any day.

[Brian]

But if the very bad day came when I dropped something on somebody's head from height, or reversed a forklift truck into somebody, or whatever; I think my mind would be a lot clearer if the insurance company turned around and just paid.

But what about the day when someone claims you injured them but you know, with absolutely no doubt, that you didn't?

[paulears]

The insured person actually has no rights at all to decide the course of action the insurance company take.

 

Long story, but Somebody tried to sue me for stopping too quickly in a private car park, and cause three cars behind me to bump - me and two others had no damage at all, the fourth, a lady driving an Audi TT wrote car car off - (a hire car) and her insurance company took me to court for causing it. I told my insurance company at the time what had happened and I heard nothing further. I found out only a year later when I got a letter from the County Court - giving me a date. I called my insurance company and they told me without me even knowing, they were not going to pay. Two days before court, they pulled out - assuming correctly that I was not going to give up. However 4 years later, I get another court date. This time she is calling me as a witness in her case against the bloke who bumped her care, having also tried the other one and failed. My insurance company asked if I was willing to attend court - In Wales! Being indignant, I said yes. They then told me that if I had refused to consider court for the first attempt against me, they would have just paid up and I'd have lost my no claims. As the insured, you can't stop them paying up, even if you disagree. It's just not your decision to make. In the end, the Judge found for the man, not the woman - but as a witness, I had a barrister - paid for by my insurance company, to protect their interest - which was a costs item. The Judge did make it quite clear though, that the old understood rule that the person at the front cannot be at blame is legally not accurate. Stopping too quickly that the person behind could not reasonably avoid a bump is the person at the front's fault. I never knew this. In most cases, it's as we assume - the person who runs into a stationary vehicle should have left space - but it's not an absolute!

[Stuart91]

The Judge did make it quite clear though, that the old understood rule that the person at the front cannot be at blame is legally not accurate. Stopping too quickly that the person behind could not reasonably avoid a bump is the person at the front's fault. I never knew this. In most cases, it's as we assume - the person who runs into a stationary vehicle should have left space - but it's not an absolute!

 

That's interesting...

 

I wonder how it is decided what constitutes "stopping too quickly".

 

Jumping on the brakes because, say, a child has run into the road, should surely not give rise to liability?

 

 

Someone went into the back of my van a number of years ago. I had stopped quite sharply because I wasn't sure I would fit under a low bridge. He ploughed into the back of me, wiping out most of the front end of his car on the substantial rear step of the van. His insurance admitted liability straight away, much to his dismay.

 

In that particular set of circumstances, I wouldn't have said I stopped particularly dramatically, it certainly wasn't a full-on emergency stop, and I'd expect a modern car would have significantly shorter stopping distance than the crusty old van I was driving at that time. I'd be curious how a court would have interpreted the situation if it had been placed before them.

[kerry davies]

In the sixties a friend was temporarily crippled when his motorbike ran into the back of a car which braked suddenly. It was a mechanic testing the brakes on an open road and his insurers paid out a fortune.

As Paul says, nothing about it is automatic and it has been that way despite folk wisdom saying otherwise.

 

Having been involved in an incident which the insurers paid out which cost my friends substantial money and me future work I am with Seano on this one. If a drunk leaps under your vehicle despite all efforts to warn them my attitude now is; "I don't pay you to attempt suicide and fail. Just lie there screaming while I find reverse."

[brainwave-generator]

But if the very bad day came when I dropped something on somebody's head from height, or reversed a forklift truck into somebody, or whatever; I think my mind would be a lot clearer if the insurance company turned around and just paid.

But what about the day when someone claims you injured them but you know, with absolutely no doubt, that you didn't?

 

It's not really my problem is it. If the insurance company choose to pay out - let them do it.

 

I'd much rather my insurance company paid out for something I didn't do, than didn't pay out for something I did do.

[Bobbsy]

It becomes your problem when your premiums sky rocket (or they just deny you coverage) next year.

 

It becomes everyone's problem when all premiums are high because of too many paid-out nuisance claims.

 

To add my horror story to the pot:

 

About ten years ago I was part owner of a small TV production/facility company in London. We had a young lady employed as a runner and one day, while making a pot of coffee in a drip filter machine, she dropped a pot of coffee spilling some on her leg burning herself slightly. We gave her the rest of the week off, a taxi to a nearby doctor then home, get well card and flowers etc. All seemed fine.

 

Later we heard from an accident claims lawyer that she was suing us for £5000 because we hadn't taught her how to hold a coffee pot properly. We were wanting to fight it but our insurers just paid out--then doubled our liability policy premium the next year.

[themadhippy]

It's not really my problem is it. If the insurance company choose to pay out - let them do it.

 

I'd much rather my insurance company paid out for something I didn't do, than didn't pay out for something I did do.

so your happy to see your premium go up yearly becuse somebody decides there own stupidity was your fault?

[brainwave-generator]

It's not really my problem is it. If the insurance company choose to pay out - let them do it.

 

I'd much rather my insurance company paid out for something I didn't do, than didn't pay out for something I did do.

so your happy to see your premium go up yearly becuse somebody decides there own stupidity was your fault?

 

Happy? No.

 

But is it that simple? Yes, the insurance companies paying out with little discretion does send out the wrong message and does keep the suing culture's wheels turning, but as somebody pointed out, it may prove that paying an out-of-court settlement works out cheaper than fighting a court battle that you end up winning anyway.

 

The courts should have more balls and impose harsher penalties on those who try to sue on flimsy grounds. The current attitude of the courts is "bad luck, you failed this time, but feel free to try again next year". It's the courts who allow unfounded and stupid cases to advance and clock up huge legal bills, and it's the insurers who realise they can save money by simply paying up in the first instance rather than paying out for the legal process.

 

If paying up immediately works out cheaper than fighting, I'm fairly down with that. Everyone has to make a living, and there's no point losing money if it can be helped.

[cfmonk]

I totally agree that if I drop a purlin on somebody's head and they get hurt then they should get a pay out. It's why we fork out a few grand a year for insurance. Equally if one of my guys turns an ankle and is off work for a couple of months and it can be shown that I was negligent then yes pay out. But I've had an example weekend just gone on a woman tripping over an edge of carpet which was stapled every six inches (like I've done for the last four years without incident). The ONLY WAY to trip on that is to be trying to but I'm fairly certain that if I pass the complaint to my insurers they will pay out. Combine that with two claims for stolen generators over the last three years and suddenly I'm a "risk". My premiums next year will go up by £5k. That's five grand myself and my business partner do not earn because some moron decided that they could try and ice skate around a tent and some pikeys took my stuff. I'm sorry but it makes me sick and any kind of encouragement for it is disgusting.

[Seano]

but as somebody pointed out, it may prove that paying an out-of-court settlement works out cheaper than fighting a court battle that you end up winning anyway.

 

Only if you take the most narrow, short-term view of things. Even if this is true of a single case, what do you think happens when the feckless scrote with the frivolous claim takes his compo off to the Dog and Duck and tells his feckless mates how he got the free money he's buying them a pint with?

 

It's the courts who allow unfounded and stupid cases to advance..

 

No it isn't. All of the horror stories above are about insurance companies settling frivolous claims before they actually get to court.

[brainwave-generator]

but as somebody pointed out, it may prove that paying an out-of-court settlement works out cheaper than fighting a court battle that you end up winning anyway.

 

Only if you take the most narrow, short-term view of things. Even if this is true of a single case, what do you think happens when the feckless scrote with the frivolous claim takes his compo off to the Dog and Duck and tells his feckless mates how he got the free money he's buying them a pint with?

 

This is why you should provide quotes in context. The entire sentence said:

 

Yes, the insurance companies paying out with little discretion does send out the wrong message and does keep the suing culture's wheels turning, but as somebody pointed out, it may prove that paying an out-of-court settlement works out cheaper than fighting a court battle that you end up winning anyway.

 

The bit that went "the insurance companies paying out with little discretion does send out the wrong message and does keep the suing culture's wheels turning" was referring to the exact thing which you just described.

[Andrew Edwards]

Anybody else seeing adverts at the bottom of this thread for injury compensation etc. ?

 

oh the irony...