Joe O'Reilly: Insurers' 'economic decision' forces shopkeepers to settle

Welcome, and can I just ask you, I came across a case or two lately of shopkeepers who had claims against them, if you like, for want of better terminology, and they, the company settled the claims, and the phrase they used was economic reasons, and they settled them at low money, or rather, they settled them at reasonable money, but the point I'm making is they didn't challenge the case at all, and they said economic reasons. Could you say, is that a general thing, and if so, is it a contributing factor, what would you say about it in general? Thank you, Senator. In response, that's one of the infuriating things, where when we do business with an insurance company, that company effectively takes hold of all matters relating to that claim. And though you will feel you have not only a case, but it's a defendable case, that whatever has happened was as a result of maybe a set-up, or that they had actually, that the person who was claiming was actually doing it as part of a strategy. You tell the insurance company or the insurance broker, I do not want you to settle this claim. And they will say, the only way that we're going to deal with this is on our terms. So they'll do the quick numbers and they'll say, to settle this will cost us now €8,000. If we went to court and if it went that whole route, it would be costing us €30,000. We're going to make the economic decision. And the only people who can actually, like for instance, Pat McDonough would be a classic case of he fights every last thing. Dunn stores would be similar, that they fight every last thing. Most of us, most of us independent retailers don't have that ability. We don't have that ability to either dictate to our insurance company what to do, or to actually fight it ourselves. So this could, I have a number of other questions then quickly, but could this be rectified? I mean, could, what could government do to deal with this? Yeah, well, you've got a situation at the moment, and in a very short space of time, you'll be able to assist if you actually take on board some amendments to the defamation bill that is being considered by the Shannon. Because certainly there's always been the defence of qualified privilege. And yet at the same time, we keep on hearing and keep on getting people coming out of us. Allow us to have that little gatekeeper of a serious harm. So if somebody says, you know, there's serious, I have been really defamed, and I can show the harm, then you allow it to go to the court, but otherwise not. They're the things that can be done, most clearly can be done. Well, thank you for that, and we'll keep an eye on that in the Shannon. Now, just, I know you did, Deputy Timmons, raise this, but could you delineate quick, I have a couple of others, so fairly sharply for me, if you're able to delineate, what are the obstacles, the specific obstacles to more companies coming into the market, to more competition, basically? Two elements again, so there's the internal piece, and in terms of existing insurers moving in and increasing the risk appetite for different sectors. I think there's a need for new ways of tracking and identifying who the larger players are, so we can actually verify increasing the risk appetite for different sectors. I think there's a need for new ways of tracking and identifying who the larger players are, so we can actually verify whether there's sufficient competition or adequate competition in certain markets. In terms of externally, I think we need to do a better job of, I think we need to properly resource the office from competition in the insurance market to take it, to promote Ireland as a destination to come in, to make sure that there's absolutely no problems in terms of accessing the relevant data that insurers need to decide whether they need to come in. But this is something that needs to be when, you know, part of all trade missions and so on. This is something insurance needs to be talked about. Ireland is a place to come and write business. Yeah, thank you for that, so we should do something about that. Now it is, and it's well referenced earlier, but the 17% premium increase, the 13% profit increases, and relative to 5% internationally. I know there are a number of elements creating that, but is there specific competition, or is there specific consumer law that could deal with that? Is there? Are you, have you researched potential laws that could be used there? Senator, I'm not aware of any that would answer that that could be used in those circumstances, and, you know, and at the end of the day, I think it's, it's, it's, there is a piece of, of, of, of, none of the existing laws, but there's potential in the defamation law, that's all. Yeah, well, no, I suppose the truth of the matter is that the style of economy that we work under allows for, allows for people to earn as many, as much profit as they can. Whether you're going to put a cap on it, whether this house is going to put a cap on it, is a different matter altogether. But, truly and truly, if, if, if they were to actually allow people to get the benefits of reduced premia, then, naturally, there would be reduced, reduced costs. Of course. But, how, how do we force them? But they're not doing that. Yeah, well, I'm sure that there are enough occasions. If they've gone up 17% at the time of time. I'm sure that there's enough occasions where the, the state actually, that the insurance company need the state, and maybe the state shouldn't be as, as, as, as, as, as offer, as, as free enough in offering, uh, facilities to try. Right. Okay. I mean, the auto-enrollment is the classic case. Yeah, next question. Why, forgive me, because there was a time I was very up to speed with this in many years ago, in another role I played, but I'm not now. Why is it not the case that if I have a claim against my local job keeper? Just to simplify it. So I fall on the floor of my local shop, I have a claim. Why does that not automatically go to the resolution board? It does, in most, in, in virtually all circumstances, cases, cases go there, but they're, they're able to leave. You don't have to agree to settle there. So what's happening is. So the client, I can leave the resolution board? Yes, you can. Even if I'm offered standard, fairly standard monies. So there's, that begs the question, but it's our issue here. Something should be done to stop, prevent that. Well, like the WRC, if I have a trouble with my employer, if a worker in that job, they must go to the WRC. And it works wonderfully. It works wonderfully. So this needs to work similarly. Yeah, and the truth of the matter is, if we are, if the WRC, sorry, if the resolutions board offers, let's say, 20,000 based upon the guidelines, I can guarantee you that in nine times out of 10, two years later than the insurance board, you will have only received the same, self-same amount of money, but your, your, your, your legal advisors would have received 23 times more. That's bizarre. You were saying that, that's in your presentation. Yeah. And the last, my last, eh, well, I'd like to, something on the broker, but no. The, eh, this thing of litigation, explain that to me, how it goes. If I, I'm anecdotally discovering, just anecdotally, chatting around, and we all have a duty in our roles to find out what's happening in the world around us. And anecdotally, I'm picking up this thing that small claims are being settled, rather than go the whole, they're settled on the steps of the court, or they're settled, even before the steps of the court, on economic grounds. And we discussed that earlier. Why, how does the diversion into litigation happen then? So, I fall on the shop floor, I seek my claim, where does it go to litigation if it's settled outside, like, where, do you know? Well, if it's settled, it's settled. It's when it's rejected, it goes to the litigation. It goes into the court. So, if the, if I, if the person claiming rejects it, it must go through the whole process then. Yeah, or the insurance company, but generally speaking, it's going to be the, the, the, the individual, the person who's actually bringing the litigation. And this again is where the, the resolution board is not having the proper function and teeth, but anyway. The entry board has done, has done, to be fair, has done very well, and it has slightly, its model is excellent. In the last, during the last government, they did introduce a new mediation service to try and deal with more contentious claims. They can now deal with psychiatric injury. So, they have been trying to bring more and more cases in there to settle. And now that we have the data to show the awards are just the same, as they should be, because they should all reflect the person in the guidelines, there's even less just... Of course. Nobody wants an individual damaged in the process. Absolutely. Everyone should, should get their just desserts. There's no question, and be appropriately compensated. What we would just like to see is more cases settled there, whether through, considering at the very least, considering whether it could be a model similar to the Workplace Relations Commission that becomes a decision-making body. But certainly we would like to, I think it's important for more cases to settle there. Could it become, is there a mechanism that could be put in place, and I'm finished, thank you Chair, if I've gone a little bit. But, could the mechanism be put in place that would make the brokers, that would make it transparent to consumers and to everyone, the amount the brokers are getting from the companies and the amount they're getting from the clients? Could that be transparent? Could that be written up in policies? Should that not be the case? Then in other words, I'd know, if I go in for my insurance, I should know how much the brokers are getting off the company, and how much they're getting off me. They definitely know how much they're getting off you, because it's on your bill. It's on your bill. So they will tell you that much. I don't, I don't know what I know... But they won't tell me what the company is giving them. Well, you see, there's a different way, we've all seen this, and it goes back a long way into the groceries order. There are ways that people get remunerated and rewarded that aren't necessarily upfront. Yes. Holidays. Or you get the cumulative effect and the long-term agreements and the like. So this isn't always just going to be, on the day, that policy, earn me that. The cumulative effect of all of those brings more money in. I agree. I agree. I agree. Let's get. Let's know about the손. In the comments... ... Pet glebe Sオ-