Insurers to provide clearer renewal quotes

Following pressure from consumer groups, it has been revealed that the FCA are currently drawing up new rules to ensure renewal quotes on insurance policies include previous premiums as well to make customers aware of when the cost of their policy is increasing.    Another idea being studied is to make insurance companies come clean about introductory discounts on premiums. In many cases, customers are charged less in the first year of a policy, as an incentive to switch. But insurance companies could be forced to tell consumers what the premium is likely to rise to when that discount expires. More on this story can be read at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28229282   S.Major, Lacey...

IRL High Court finds Defendant liable for injuries sustained by their employee whilst attempting to reach goods piled on a trolley.

Barry v Dunnes Stores Clonmel (Limited) In dismissing the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff had acted in a manner contrary to her safety training and had caused the injury to herself, Irvine J stated: “Every employee must take care for their own safety… However, the fact that an employer may train its staff at the time of recruitment and intermittently thereafter regarding the risk of injury to their back is significantly negated if, in daily practice, the methods for moving goods safely as advised in the course of training are not deployed by employees and managers do not enforce compliance with training and safe practice. In this regard I am satisfied from the evidence of the plaintiff… that it was not uncommon for trolleys to be stacked in the manner in which they were stacked on the day of the plaintiff’s injury.”   The plaintiff was not fully absolved of liability however, and in assessing whether there was contributory negligence, the court ruled: “Regardless of these facts the Plaintiff should have known not to try to lift down the box which caused her injury. She did this without ascertaining its weight. Had the plaintiff ascertained its weight by getting a step ladder, albeit it that this may have taken some minutes, I think this injury would not have happened. Alternatively she should have recognized the risk of taking any load from over head height and she should have refused to do so. In either set of circumstances the plaintiff would not have been injured. Accordingly I have decided that she must bear 30% of the liability for her Injuries.”...

IRL High Court rules owners of children’s play park are not liable for injuries sustained by child.

Byrne [A minor] & anor -v- Stephen Bell Trading as Bumblebees Cross J ruled that the defendants, who owned a children’s play area, were not liable for injuries sustained by a child on their premises.   The plaintiff, bringing the action through his next friend, his father, alleged that the injuries sustained by him during a visit to the play area were caused by reason of a negligence of the defendants in the layout of the premises and their failure to have any adequate supervision or intervention to prevent danger, or the accident such as occurred.   In dismissing the action, Cross J stated: “You cannot ensure against all mishaps or accidents to young children. Accidents, injuries, do happen from time to time and do so without any fault. Play areas such as Bumblebees are an important part of the development of children who are, as in this case, generally far safer there than in some regimes where prudent parents will allow their children to play entirely unsupervised, for example, gardens with trees.”   The full judgement can be read here: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/8aa718002019a30380257b340058fecb?OpenDocument   S.Major, Lacey...

IRL High Court ruled that monies paid out of “Dunnes Stores Management Pension and Life Assurance Scheme” were not to be deducted from the Plaintiff’s loss of earnings claim pursuant to s. 2 of the Civil Liability (Amendment ) Act 1964.

Monahan -v- Dunnes Stores & Ano  On the plaintiff’s behalf it was submitted that the payment which she received was payable by Friends First in respect of the injury which was the subject matter of wrongful act in the proceedings and was a payment that was paid under a contract of insurance which therefore was a sum which was not deductible by virtue of the provisions of s. 2(a) of the Act. They relied on the decision of Geoghegan J. in Greene v. Hughes Haulage [1998] 1 ILRM 34, a case in which the wording of s. 2 of the Act was considered.   In that case, the plaintiff’s employer, Elan Corporation, had an Employee Benefit Plan in place designed to provide its employees with certain pension, early retirement and death in service benefits. The Employee Benefit Plan also entitled its members to certain income benefits in the event of prolonged disability. The latter benefit, which was described as the “Disability Benefit Plan”, was operated by way of separate arrangement from the other benefits under an Employee Benefit Plan and was governed by a policy of insurance made between Elan and Irish Life. Geoghegan J. decided that the payments made under the Disability plan were not deductible against the plaintiff’s loss of earnings claim and that it was immaterial that she had not been a party to the contract. It was a contract that had been made for her benefit and was therefore to be considered as part of her overall remuneration such that she should be considered to have indirectly contributed to the premium.   In applying the authority, Irvine...

IRL High Court dismisses a claim under Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004.

Salako -v- O'Carroll    Peart J, in his ruling, stated that there was no injustice in doing so, due to the lack of truth and attempts to mislead the court in the evidence given by the Plaintiff, a national of Toga, referring to her as “a very poor historian.”   Despite reporting back and neck pain, and the need to use a crutch on an intermittent basis, video footage obtained by private investigators showed the Plaintiff only making use of the crutch on days when she had medical appointments arranged by the Defendants which, along with the multiple inconsistencies and inaccuracies in her evidence, was enough to satisfy the Judge that dismissing the claim under the 2004 act would not be unjust.   The full judgement can be read here:   http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/309cea242f6e2d2080257b090056df8d?OpenDocument   S.Major, Lacey...
css.php