Call for lower insurance premiums after dramatic drop in High Court claims

Insurers have been called on to slash their premiums after official figures showed a dramatic fall in the number of injuries cases being heard by the High Court.

The annual report of the Courts Service shows there was a 29pc reduction in the number of personal injury cases being heard by the High Court last year when compared with the previous year.

The figure excludes medical negligence cases.

When compared with 2021, the number of cases is down 50pc.

The fall has been attributed to the introduction of the Judicial Guidelines a number of years ago when judges agreed to recommended award levels in personal injuries cases that are up to 40pc lower than previous guidelines.

Some of the highest awards are made in the High Court.

Insurers have long argued that they will pass on lower premiums to policyholders if court award levels for personal injuries cases fall. They cases are often referred to as “slips and trips”.

The Alliance for Insurance Reform said lower settlement amounts were producing savings for insurers but these savings were not being passed on to businesses and consumers.

Alliance board member Flora Crowe said: “In fact, premiums continue to rise for many and with the cost of doing business already too high, we need Government to address this.

“Many reforms such as the Judicial Guidelines were introduced but all we see are insurer profits rising.”

Recent Central Statistics Office figures show motor insurance premiums were up for the 11th month in a row in July.

Home insurance costs were up 7pc in July when compared with last year.

Ms Crowe said that as the Injuries Resolution Board can now process claims of greater complexity, there is a need to see more cases settled in that channel.

Personal injuries cases have to first go the Injuries Resolution Board, which used to be called the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. Claims only end up in the courts if the settlement offer from the board is rejected by either side.

Ms Crowe said a recent report from the Central Bank shows no meaningful difference in public liability awards settled through litigation rather than through the Injuries Resolution Board.

The Central Bank said litigated cases generate typical legal costs of €23,000, compared with €1,000 for cases settled through the Injuries Resolution Board.

Ms Crowe said: “The high volume of cases being settled in the litigation channel (69pc) requires urgent attention as these additional and often unnecessary costs are inevitably being picked up by policyholders.”

The rise in the cost of insurance is despite the Government introducing a large number of reforms in an attempt to bring down the cost of insurance for motorists, homeowners, businesses and charities.

These include legislating to change the guidelines on payouts for minor injuries after the State’s judges agreed to lower recommended award levels.

The State’s Injuries Resolution Board has also been reformed. It is cheaper for insurers and consumers to use because legal costs are a fraction of those for cases that are litigated.

There has been a dedicated Garda ­insurance fraud unit set up, with changes to duty-of-care legislation, making it harder for those exaggerating compensation claims to get a payout.

Insurers have blamed the rise in premiums on a higher number, and increased value, of damages claims to vehicles. Insurers say there has been a rise in road collisions.

They also argue that there are higher costs of repairs to homes.

Costs for insurers remain high as there is a continued pattern of claims going the litigated route, Insurance Ireland has said.

Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan’s exclusive take on the day’s news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Injuries board reports 10% rise in claims last year

The Injuries Resolution Board (IRB) has seen a 10% increase in claims made to it during 2023, resulting in €170m being paid out in personal injury awards, new reports show. According to the latest annual report from the IRB, formerly known as the Personal Injuries...

Understanding the Recent Norney v. Dr. Michael Watt Case

On 3 October 2024, the High Court in Belfast delivered a significant judgement in the case of Martine Norney versus Dr Michael Watt and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Martine Norney was awarded £50,000 in damages after it was determined that her treatment...

Ryanair facing DPC probe over facial recognition

Ryanair is facing a Data Protection Commission (DPC) inquiry into its customer verification process, which includes the use of facial recognition technology. The DPC has received a number of complaints regarding the budget airline’s practice of requesting additional...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...