For insurance defence law firms in Ireland, understanding the intricacies of pre-litigation issues, the litigation process, and the potential for appeals in personal injury claims is vital. This blog explores essential topics such as PIAB authorisation, statute of limitations, interrogatories, and nervous shock claims. We’ll break down these issues and offer insights on how they can impact any givendefence strategy.
1) Pre-Litigation Issues
PIAB Authorisation: Understanding its Role
The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) plays a central role in personal injury claims in Ireland. One of the key pre-litigation issues to address is whether PIAB authorisation is required before a claim can proceed. This is usually necessary when seeking damages for personal injury.
However, complications can arise in cases involving assault, medical negligence, or product liability claims. In the case of Clarke v O’Gorman (2014), the court clarified that PIAB authorisation is not a jurisdictional bar but must be clearly pleaded.
A key takeaway here is that for personal injury claims, PIAB authorisation is generally required. However, claims for non-material breaches, such as distress or data protection violations, require careful consideration to determine if they fall under the PIAB Act.
Case Study: Dillon v. Irish Life (2024)
In Dillon v. Irish Life (2024), the High Court examined whether a claim for distress, anxiety, and upset was a civil action for damages under the PIAB Act. The court ruled that such claims do require PIAB authorisation, stressing the importance of clear and proper pleading. This decision has important ramifications for claims that mix non-material breaches like data protection violations with personal injury claims.
Pre-Litigation Correspondence: A Critical Step
Pre-litigation engagement can be crucial for shaping the direction of a case. Correspondence with the plaintiff’s solicitor can confirm whether PIAB authorisation is necessary, help identify the correct defendant, and serve as a foundation for settlement negotiations. It’s important to be cautious, as errors in identifying defendants or failing to address statute of limitations issues could lead to a statute-based defence as we outlined in our previous article on Understanding Limitation Periods for Personal Injury Claims in Ireland
2) Clear and Specific Pleadings during litigation
Interrogatories: New Rule Changes
The introduction of SI 363 of 2024 allows a party to deliver up to 20 interrogatories to the other side without court permission. This provides an opportunity for the defence to clarify facts before the discovery phase, which could reduce the need for extensive document production. However, interrogatories must meet strict criteria, including being relevant, concise, and focused on facts that are likely to be known to the responding party.
The Importance of Pleadings
Practitioners will be aware that Irish courts are becoming increasingly strict regarding the quality of pleadings. Defendants must ensure their defences are specific, clear, and detailed, particularly when it comes to contentious issues like contributory negligence or fraud. The case of Morgan v. ESB (2021) highlighted the need for defences to be precise and not vague or boilerplate.
Key considerations for defendants include:
- Explicitly pleading fraud.
- The requirement for an affidavit of verification in many cases.
- Providing detailed responses on contributory negligence.
Case Study: Naughton v. Cool Runnings (2021)
In Naughton v. Cool Runnings (2021), the court reinforced the need for clear and specific pleadings. The case stressed that vague or overly general defences could damage a defendant’s case, leading to potential liability.
3) Calderbank offers and Personal Injury Guidelines
The Role of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal is placing increased scrutiny on both plaintiffs and defendants. In Collins v. Parm (2024), the court reduced the plaintiff’s damages after the plaintiff failed to beat a Calderbank offer. However, the court did not order costs against the plaintiff. This case demonstrates the significance of strategic decisions, especially around settlement offers and their impact on the final judgment.
Personal Injury Guidelines: Draft Amendments
The Judicial Council’s Personal Injury Guidelines have recently been revised. On 21 October 2024, the Board increased the guidelines by 16.7% in response to global inflation. These changes are not retrospective but have a significant effect on the calculation of damages in personal injury cases for insurance law firms in Ireland, particularly for those negotiating settlements or preparing for trials.
4) Nervous Shock Claims Post-Germaine v. Day
Nervous Shock: Clarifications Post-Germaine v. Day
The Germaine v. Day case has redefined the scope of nervous shock claims in Ireland, particularly in healthcare settings. Claimants seeking compensation for nervous shock now face stricter criteria. To succeed in a nervous shock claim, plaintiffs must show that their psychiatric injury was caused by a sudden and traumatic event.
To succeed in a nervous shock claim, plaintiffs must demonstrate the following:
- They suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness.
- The injury was shock-induced.
- The shock was caused by the defendant’s act or omission.
- The injury resulted from actual or anticipated physical injury to the plaintiff or another person.
- The defendant owed a duty of care, and it was foreseeable that their actions could cause such injury.
In evaluating these claims, the Glencar test applies, considering factors like whether the injury was foreseeable, the proximity of the relationship, and whether it is fair and just to impose a duty of care.
Conclusion: Proactive and modern Defence Strategies in Insurance Claims
For insurance law firms in Ireland, understanding and addressing the complexities of pre-litigation and litigation issues is essential to a robust defence strategy. From confirming the PIAB authorisation requirements to managing the statute of limitations, interrogatories, and nervous shock claims, each step in the process can significantly impact the outcome of a case.
By proactively addressing these issues and ensuring clear and specific pleadings, insurance defence lawyers can better navigate the evolving landscape of personal injury litigation. This will help ensure a more effective defence that aligns with current legal standards and judicial interpretations.
If you need further guidance on any of these issues, our team of experienced insurance defence solicitors is here to assist you.
