We use cookies to collect and analyse information on site performance and usage to improve and customise your experience, where applicable. Click OK to use our website.

Law Society meets minister to rectify imbalance in insurance debateNew Page
Director general Ken Murphy, past-president Stuart Gilhooly, Minister of State Michael D’Arcy and Council member Martin Lawlor

13 May 2019 / Law Society Print

Law Society meets minister to on insurance  imbalance

‘Fraudulent claimants should go to jail’ was the unambiguous message delivered by Law Society representatives to Minister of State Michael D’Arcy at a meeting on 17 April 2019.

Minister D’Arcy has responsibility for insurance matters and is currently leading the Government’s campaign to reduce the cost of insurance for businesses and motorists.

Insights

The Society had sought the meeting with him and his officials to discuss various aspects of the cost of insurance and the personal injuries litigation system. The Society believed it had information and insights to share with him that he might not hear from other quarters.

The Society representatives comprised director general Ken Murphy, past-president and member of the Personal Injuries Commission Stuart Gilhooly, and Council member Martin Lawlor.

No ambivalence

They urged that the Society and the solicitors’ profession should not be viewed falsely by Government as part of the insurance problem, but properly as part of the solution. There was no ambivalence in the profession about this. Solicitors utterly condemn all fraudulent claims.

Those who bring them should be detected, prosecuted, and imprisoned. The same should apply to any solicitor knowingly assisting in the bringing of a fraudulent claim.

The question remained, however, what the true incidence of fraudulent claims was.

The Society believed it was far lower than insurers and other defence vested-interests claimed constantly in the media.

False impression

People made judgements about this based on the publicity given to cases being ‘thrown out’ by judges.

However, genuine cases of negligence causing injury – statistically the overwhelming majority of all cases – are rarely, if ever, reported in the media.

This gives a false impression of the incidence of genuine versus fraudulent claims to the public.

As personal injuries cases are almost invariably brought by solicitors on a ‘no-win, no-fee’ basis, even apart from the ethical principles that should always prevail, solicitors had absolutely no economic incentive to carry the cost of bringing a case in whose merits they did not fully believe.

Award levels

The Society questioned why the focus of attention was always on the levels of awards in Ireland in comparison to England and Wales.

The true focus of attention should be on the levels of premiums in the two jurisdictions, and the Society had expert research to demonstrate that – when like was compared with like – insurance premiums in many, if not most, cases were actually higher in England and Wales than in Ireland.

This demonstrated that the assumed direct link between award levels and the cost of insurance was highly questionable.

Innocent victims

In addition, the Society insisted that it was perfectly legitimate to urge that the perspective of accident victims should be heard.

The innocent victims of the negligence of others had no organised voice, unlike other powerful vested interests, and their perspective should not be constantly ignored in the utterly one-sided public debate.

Fully signed up

The Society is fully signed up to the recommendations of the unanimous Personal Injuries Commission report published in November 2018.

This includes the recommendation that the new Judicial Council should review the levels of awards for various types of injuries, in particular soft-tissue (‘whiplash-type’) injuries, ultimately leading to judicial guidelines on quantum for such injuries.

Care should be taken by Government in such a process, however, to ensure that there would be no undermining of the separation of powers provided for in the Constitution.

The State is most often a defendant in personal injuries cases, and its status as a vested-interest should not be ignored.

Cast-iron guarantee

Of vital importance, in the view of the Society, is the necessity of ensuring that, if there were to be a reduction in awards to accident victims, the Government must insist on a cast-iron and, if necessary, a statutory guarantee that premiums will reduce.

In the absence of such an enforceable statutory guarantee (as mere assurances from the insurance industry would be worthless), insurance premiums would not reduce. Instead, the already excessive profits of insurance companies would simply increase, with reduced awards to victims but no benefit whatsoever to premium payers.

That would be not merely unconscionable, but senseless.

Worthwhile meeting

In the course of what the Society representatives viewed as a very worthwhile meeting, Minister D’Arcy appeared to listen respectfully to the Society’s views and arguments.

He made no direct criticisms of the solicitors’ profession, and indicated that he agreed with a great deal of what the Society had said to him.

In particular, as he had stated many times publicly, he was determined not only that what he viewed as “excessive awards for minor injuries” would have to be reduced, but that the full benefit of such reductions must be passed on by insurers to premium payers.

He would make absolutely certain they were not retained by the insurers.

Gazette Desk
Gazette.ie is the daily legal news site of the Law Society of Ireland