Latest news with #InjuriesResolutionBoard
Irish Independent
4 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
The state body that allows people to resolve personal injury claims without incurring legal costs is proposing a radical rethink of how it operates
The Injuries Resolution Board has called on the Government to consider changing the law to allow it to sanction the paying of legal fees. Such a move would represent a massive U-turn because the board was set up 20 years ago with the express intention of avoiding costly legal fees. Under current legislation, the board can sanction the paying of legal fees only in very limited circumstances. In a submission to the Department of Finance, as part of the public consultation on a new Action Plan For Insurance Reform, the Injuries Resolution Board says that 95pc of claimants using its services are represented by a solicitor. The fact that it does not pay legal fees means people often reject its settlement offers, the submission states. Close to half of the settlement offers made by the board are rejected. However, legal fees often end up being paid by insurers' lawyers after the claim leaves the Injuries Resolution Board, the submission says.
Irish Independent
4 days ago
- Business
- Irish Independent
Injuries Resolution Board proposes rethink on whether it can sanction the paying of legal fees
The Injuries Resolution Board has called on the Government to consider changing the law to allow it to sanction the paying of legal fees. Such a move would represent a massive U-turn because the board was set up 20 years ago with the express intention of avoiding costly legal fees. Under current legislation, the board can sanction the paying of legal fees only in very limited circumstances. In a submission to the Department of Finance, as part of the public consultation on a new Action Plan For Insurance Reform, the Injuries Resolution Board says that 95pc of claimants using its services are represented by a solicitor. The fact that it does not pay legal fees means people often reject its settlement offers, the submission states. Close to half of the settlement offers made by the board are rejected. However, legal fees often end up being paid by insurers' lawyers after the claim leaves the Injuries Resolution Board, the submission says. 'For a large proportion of claims that leave our system, legal fees are incurred thereafter and paid,' the submission said. The Injuries Resolution Board, formerly known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, is the state body allowing people to resolve personal injury claims without having to go to court. It deals with road traffic, public liability and workplace personal injury claims. Most injury claims have to go to it before going to court, and can go to court only if an assessment by the board is rejected by either side. The longer a claim lasted before being resolved, the higher the legal fees, the board said. The submission said that many insurers offered to pay legal fees where the claimant's solicitor agreed to accept the award initially recommended by the Injuries Board after the claim had left the Injuries Board system. This meant that the board should consider paying legal fees. The submission states: 'In the interests of resolving claims at an earlier juncture for all concerned, 20 years after the establishment of the board, the question of legal fees needs to be considered.' ADVERTISEMENT Such a move may undercut lawyers who have a financial interest in getting cases out of the Injuries Board to generate fees for themselves. The Injuries Board calls for consideration for a 'scale of fees' that it would pay. It understood that typical legal fees would be between €1,000 and €2,000, reflecting that fact that Injuries Board assessments are resolved much faster than if they are litigated. A separate submission from the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission says that resolving personal injury claims through the Injuries Resolution Board is faster than litigation and has lower legal costs. Central Bank research has found that settlement costs for claims of less than €150,000 are €23,000 for both cases settled by the Injuries Board and for those involving litigation. For cases taken through the Injuries Board, the legal costs are €1,000. But if they involved litigation, the legal costs rise to €23,000. More than 70pc of claims are settled by litigation, representing 89pc of injury settlement costs, the Central Bank found. And legal costs have risen despite the Personal Injuries Guidelines, used by both the courts and the Injuries Board, having dropped by up to 40pc in the past few years. And judges have controversially recommended that award guideline levels rise by 16.7pc, which the Government has yet to endorse. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission submission calls for more data on legal costs. Fast-food giant Supermac's, whose owner Pat McDonagh has long campaigned for insurance reform, submitted that there should be insurance pricing transparency legislation. The company wants mandatory disclosure by insurers of the key components contributing to premium calculations. It also wants insurers to be forced to justify 'significant year-on-year premium increases, with oversight by a regulatory body'. The Alliance for Insurance Reform submitted that broker charges account for an increasing proportion of the overall cost of insurance and that brokerage firms are being sold for huge multiples. 'Many brokers now charge a fee based on a percentage of the cost of the policy. This is inherently unfair to consumers as the 'worse' the premium they secure for them, the more money they will make. We believe this needs further examination,' the Alliance stated. Representative group for small businesses, ISME, said there is 'no moral hazard for fraudulent claims'. The Convenience Stores and Newsagents Association (CSNA) called for insurance companies to 'devote more time and resources to investigating claims rather than paying up due to a cost-benefit analysis'. Some 70 submissions were made, but the Law Society, which represents solicitors, and the Bar Council, which represents barristers, do not appear to have made submissions.
Irish Times
30-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Insurers and businesses call for injury guidelines reform as 17% rise planned
Insurers, business lobby groups and the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) have called for an overhaul of how personal injury awards guidelines are set, amid concern that a planned 16.7 per cent hike to payouts will widen the gap with other European jurisdictions when it comes to whiplashes and other minor injuries. Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan 's officials are working on draft legislation that would bring about the increase, which has been put forward by the Judicial Council under an awards guidelines regime that came into being four years ago. A Supreme Court ruling last year confirmed that the council had the power to set guidelines, as long as they, and any changes, are rubber stamped by both Houses of the Oireachtas. A number of insurers and business representative groups have used a Department of Finance public consultation on future insurance reforms to register concerns about the planned blanket increase to personal injury awards, the frequency with which they are reviewed and the extent of powers the judiciary has. READ MORE Aviva Insurance Ireland said that while the 2021 guidelines brought down overall injury awards, the going rate for minor neck injuries where recovery is made within six months is up to €3,000, 5½ times higher than that in the UK. 'The large disparity is before the 16.7 per cent increase proposed by the Judicial Council, which, if introduced, will make the gap even larger,' Aviva said. 'Comparing Aviva's claims in the UK and Ireland, attritional claims like whiplash represent 30 per cent of the cost of motor insurance premium in Ireland compared to 10 per cent of premium in the UK in 2024 and lower still in Europe.' 'We estimate that the cost of implementing the 16.7 per cent increase is €74 million, which ultimately will be paid for by customers.' Aviva , Allianz Ireland and Insurance Ireland each called for the guidelines to be benchmarked against European countries. 'Legal expenses and award levels for lower-value claims remain disproportionately high and are not aligned with those observed in the UK and other European jurisdictions,' said Allianz. 'Before any inflationary adjustments are made to the personal injuries guidelines, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive benchmarking exercise with our European counterparts to ensure a proportionate and evidence-based approach.' Alliance for Insurance Reform, a lobby group for business and civic organisations, said the periodic review of awards should be extended from three to seven years. 'The guidelines ought not to be both reviewed and subsequently applied by the judiciary,' the alliance said in its submission to the Department of Finance. 'Rather the former responsibility should be delegated to an independent commission comprising a variety of members, reflective of the many stakeholders and policy considerations involved.' Small business lobby group ISME also called for judges to be removed entirely from the setting of awards guidelines. It claimed, in addition, that 'there is too much judicial discretion improperly exercised in favour of losing plaintiffs' in the injury cases that end up in court. The IRB said the current three-year review cycle does not allow guidelines to be embedded. It suggested it should be extended to five years. It also called for clarity on what happens if the Houses of the Oireachtas does not approve amendments. 'Under the current guidelines model, there could be several versions of the guidelines in use dependent on whether a claim has already been assessed or if legal proceedings have been initiated,' it said. 'A situation cannot exist whereby the same injury, the same claim, that has been rejected within the Injuries Resolution Board goes into the court system and a different set of guidelines is used to value compensation.'
Irish Times
27-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
The debate: Is going to court worth it for personal injuries claimants?
Moyagh Murdock: No. Compensation awarded by the IRB is similar to that awarded by the courts The answer is no. Not for claimants, not for policyholders, not for the economy or society. The personal injuries system is at a crossroads. On one side lies a time-consuming litigation process. On the other, a faster, fairer and more cost-effective alternative: the Injuries Resolution Board (IRB). Let's be clear: the IRB works. It delivers broadly similar compensation outcomes as litigation, but at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time. The IRB was designed to streamline claims, reduce legal overheads and deliver justice swiftly. It is an efficient and effective service for claimants. It empowers individuals to resolve their cases quickly. Using the IRB delivers results in a fraction of the time. Claimants can get their lives back on track much quicker and with much more certainty by going through the IRB route. Claims take on average two years to settle through the IRB, compared with an average of six years through costly and unnecessary litigation. The Central Bank of Ireland's national claims information database (NCID), established in 2019, provides policymakers with a definitive independent data source on the personal injury claims environment. In its most recent report on liability claims , published in March of this year for 2023 claims data, the NCID illustrated the significant impact of litigation, with more than 70 per cent of claims settled by litigation, representing 89 per cent of injury settlement costs. These legal costs are ultimately borne by policyholders, businesses and consumers. They affect insurance premiums and put significant strain on small businesses and unnecessary pressure on the court services with cases that could – and should – be resolved more efficiently. READ MORE Critics may argue that litigation offers more 'control' or 'fairness'. But the data tells a different story. The compensation awarded by the IRB is broadly similar to that awarded by the courts. Successive NCID reports have highlighted the effectiveness and efficiency of the IRB's claim settlement process. Compensation levels – whether in a litigated process or settled by the IRB – are based on the same personal injuries guidelines. The guidelines were introduced by the Judicial Council in 2021. The NCID has reported previously that legal costs are well over 20 times higher in the litigation channel than in the IRB. It is concerning, therefore, that the Judicial Council has proposed a 16.7 per cent increase in the personal injuries guidelines. This could erode the progress made by the Government's insurance reform agenda. If implemented, the recommended increase would directly impact claims costs, which are ultimately borne by consumers. As a result of the IRB and the introduction of the personal injuries guidelines, it is easier than ever for parties to resolve a case at an early stage without litigation and unnecessary legal costs. This means less delay, less waste of resources, fewer medical and other expert reports, leading to a more efficient claims process and speedier payment of compensation to accident victims. The current claims environment and the Government's action plan for insurance reform have created ample opportunity for claimants, insurers and their advisers to settle cases quickly and cost effectively without going to court. For personal liability claims, it is the best route to take to have claims resolved quickly and efficiently. The IRB has been immensely positive in its 20-year history, and it continues to evolve. With a broader mediation mandate, it is more capable than ever of delivering timely, fair and proportionate outcomes. The courts should be reserved for complex or contested cases – not routine claims that can be resolved quickly and fairly using the IRB. Moyagh Murdock is chief executive of Insurance Ireland Seán Guerin: Yes. Court proceedings produce the best results for victims Insurance is a numbers game and the insurance industry is very good with numbers. It can be hard for the ordinary reader to keep up. Fortunately, the Central Bank is here to help. To understand what has been happening in the Irish insurance market, only one number matters: what the Central Bank calls 'gross insurance-related result'. This number shows how much money insurance companies make on the policies they issue, after the cost of claims (including compensation and legal costs), as a percentage of premium income. That number tells a very simple story. In recent years, the insurance industry in Ireland has been making out like bandits. For motor insurance, between 2009 and 2012, the gross insurance-related result was -1 per cent. Between 2017 and 2023, it was 15 per cent. For other insurance types (employers' liability, public liability and commercial property), between 2009 and 2014 it was 0.8 per cent. In 2022, it was 31 per cent and in 2023 it was 34 per cent. These mind-boggling increases in the profitability of insurance underwriting in Ireland have been achieved by hoodwinking the public, the media and successive governments into believing that compensation awards or legal costs, or both, were too high. Compensation is simply a means of providing redress to a victim of a civil, as opposed to a criminal, wrong. Because the process of obtaining redress is legally and factually complex, victims are entitled to the advice and representation of expert lawyers. Forcing down compensation awards, while at the same time reducing the ability of victims to recover the real cost of essential legal advice and representation, is a double blow to victims. But for the insurance industry, the beating of victims will continue while profits improve. An editorial published in this newspaper last week made three fundamental errors in reaching the conclusion that 'the benefits of ... taking your case to court are at best marginal'. The first error is to ignore the Central Bank findings of boomtime insurance underwriting profit, while high premiums for consumers and businesses remain. The public policy goal of reducing insurance costs to consumers and businesses has not been achieved. The second error is to ignore the effect on victims, who are now expected to navigate the legal and procedural difficulties of their situation without legal advice and representation, unless they pay for it out of their own pockets or their award of compensation. This is unfair. The third error is to assume that a single bureaucratic assessment of redress is an adequate substitute for the judicial process. The IRB applies the same guidelines as in court. True, but the application of the guidelines to individual cases still requires sensitivity and understanding. It is too early to tell whether the IRB does this job as well as the courts. What is clear is that the legitimacy of any system of redress depends heavily on the opportunity for a victim to have their voice properly heard. Last year saw the 100th anniversary of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 celebrated. A century after their establishment, the Irish people trust their courts, and independent judges, to see justice done. They also trust their lawyers, both solicitors and barristers, to advise them and speak up for them. And the Central Bank has shown them to be right. The March 2025 Central Bank report shows that issuing proceedings in court and settling with the benefit of expert legal advice produces the best results for victims. Compared with awards by the IRB, litigating and settling produces a 60 per cent increase in compensation for pain and suffering and a 500 per cent increase in compensation for financial loss. If you've been injured unlawfully, call your local solicitor and let them find you an expert barrister if necessary. Don't let the insurance industry – or your newspaper – tell you otherwise. Seán Guerin SC is chair the Council of the Bar of Ireland
Irish Independent
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- Irish Independent
Decrease in motor claims raises questions about premium hikes
The value of the claims has also declined sharply, raising questions about why motor insurance premiums are rising so much. New figures from the Injuries Resolution Board show that motor accident claims have fallen by 30pc over the past six years. The value of the awards the body pays out are down by 41pc. The fall is due largely to judges agreeing to guidelines that recommended lower levels of awards four years ago. The Injuries Resolution Board, formerly known as the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, is the state body allowing people to resolve personal injury claims without having to go to court. It deals with road traffic, public liability and workplace personal injury claims. Claims can go to court only if an assessment by the board is rejected by either side. The guidelines were put in place by judges and later given legal standing. These recommend payouts are up to 40pc lower than previous recommendations. Despite a huge fall in award levels due to the guidelines, motor insurance premiums have been shooting up. Central Bank figures show the average cost is now €616 – a rise of €67 since 2022. Separate CSO figures show the cost of motor insurance rose for the 20th month in a row in April, up by close to 10pc in the year. A special report by the Injuries Resolution Board shows it awarded more than €700m in compensation for injuries sustained in almost 40,000 motor accidents in the six-year period between 2019 and last year. ADVERTISEMENT The report also calculates that more than €284m was avoided in legal fees by claims being resolved through the board process rather than through litigation during the six-year period. The median award for a motor claim is now €12,500, down 30pc on 2020. However, it is up 17pc on last year due to a rise in claims for psychiatric damage. The remit of the Injuries Resolution Board was recently widened to include psychiatric damage claims. Dr Lauren Swan, a statistician with the board, said: 'Motor liability claims were 30pc lower in 2024 than 2019 – despite a return to pre-pandemic traffic levels, increased number of registered vehicles and national driving licences, but claims were 4pc higher than 2023.' The Injuries Resolution Board received on average 33 road traffic accident claims per day last year. Dr Swan said: 'The total value of awards made in 2024 was €105.8m, a 5pc increase on 2023, but 41pc lower than 2019.' She said that this showed the 'significant impact of the personal injuries guidelines'. The fall in the number and value of motor claims comes at a time when insurers in this country are marking large profits. Indigenous general insurer FBD is reported to be planning to pay almost €19m in a special dividend to its shareholders later this year. That would bring total payments since early 2022 to almost €234m. Allianz Ireland has paid €300m to its German parent since the Covid-19 pandemic, although it did not pay a dividend to its parent last year, The Irish Times has reported. Insurance Ireland said that it noted the publication of research issued by the Injuries Resolution Board. It said 'the organisation has awarded over €700m in compensation for injuries sustained in almost 40,000 motor accidents over six years, and points to significant savings in legal fees by going this route rather than opting for expensive litigation. 'The report also outlines that motor liability claim volumes increased by 4pc from 2023 to 2024. 'The trend of settling personal injury claims through the expensive litigated route continues to add significant cost, despite the fact that it doesn't add to the levels of awards the claimant receives via either the Injuries Resolution Board process or directly settling claims with insurer,' it added.
