Personal Injury Claim on behalf of a person who subsequently dies

Good afternoon,
My mother and late father were involved in an RTA in 2004. They were hit from behind. A week after my father passed away in 2005 an offer was made by the insurance company for 11k and 9k respectively. Understandably my mother was grieving when this offer was made, but she must have rejected it. She accepted an offer of 18.5k in 2006 but was told that my father's claim had died with him. However, insurance company made a token contribution of EUR320 towards my father's medical expenses in 2007. Is this correct that my father's claim died with him or could this claim be revisited? Many thanks.

Statute of limitations put a 2 year limit on claims AFAIK, which your parents initially met. I would have thought that if this was not dealt with at the time of probate, or was and the answer from the insurance company was as you outlined, then the chances of them accepting a claim 20 years on is probably nil

Well he can’t claim if he’s not alive…,

Well obviously!I thought that maybe my mother who is still alive could revisit the claim on his behalf as his spouse.

@Peanuts20. Thanks for your reply. I presumed that that would be the case but was worth a try. Thought it was lousy that they didn't settle the claim fairly because he died. My mother would obviously have been the beneficiary of his claim. There was no probate involved after his death.

Monkey47 said:

Well obviously!I thought that maybe my mother who is still alive could revisit the claim on his behalf as his spouse.

Click to expand...

With respect, it’s no longer possible for your father to be directly compensated for any injury or loss he may have suffered.

You seem to be suggesting that his estate should instead benefit from any award he would have received had he not passed but I don’t think insurance works that way.

Claims in relation to actually-incurred expenses survive death. If the OP's father had incurred medical or other expenses as a result of the accident his estate could maintain proceedings to recover these. Similarly if he had quantifiable losses — off work for three months, lost earnings as a result; car was totalled and had to be replaced; etc.

But claims for general damages to compensate you for pain and suffering do not survive your death. The payment of money after you're dead can't retrospectively compensate you for the pain and suffering you experienced while alive, and obviously you're not now experiencing either pain or suffering.

Similarly claims in respect of future loss of earnings or other future losses or expenses won't survive your death, because we now know that you will not incur these future losses or expenses.

TomEdison said:

But claims for general damages to compensate you for pain and suffering do not survive your death. The payment of money after you're dead can't retrospectively compensate you for the pain and suffering you experienced while alive,

Click to expand...

Whilst that maybe the case, a good barrister could challenge same..

Using the OP situation, albeit not 20 years later, and on a larger scale, If Joe and Mary were in a car accident, a year later, joe passes away and claim not resolved although liability admitted by insurer. Had the insurer agreed a settlement in Joes favor prior to his passing, Mary would have benefited with the increased estate, nothing wrong with that imo..

Mary in the meantime cared for his pain and suffering until his time of passing, this should not be ignored, and Id say a court might see the merits of this. To delve deeper on this, can you be a 100% certain, the injury suffered didn't play a part, however small in Joes passing, again, a good barrister only needs to sow a seed of doubt in this.

On a personal basis, compensation dying with death should not be black an white, there is a grey area there.

LS400 said:

Mary in the meantime cared for his pain and suffering until his time of passing, this should not be ignored, and Id say a court might see the merits of this. To delve deeper on this, can you be a 100% certain, the injury suffered didn't play a part, however small in Joes passing, again, a good barrister only needs to sow a seed of doubt in this.

On a personal basis, compensation dying with death should not be black an white, there is a grey area there.

Click to expand...

To be clear, Mary's claim in respect of her pain and suffering arising out of the accident survives; it does not die because Joe has died. But any claim in respect of Joe's pain and suffering dies with Joe.

This isn't (legally speaking) a grey area; the principles are well settled.

Worth adding that if Joe died becuase of the road traffic accident, rather than coincidentally, then Mary (and other family members) will have a claim for compensation for wrongful death. But it's not enough to "sow a seed of doubt" about this; you'll need evidence (most likely, medican evidence) to satisfy the court that, more probably than not, Joe's death was the result of the accident. Family members can then recover funeral, etc, costs and they can also recover for loss of financial support if they were financially dependent on or interdependent with Joe. The amount of compsation will depend on what Joe earned, how and to what extent they benefited from Joe's earnings, how old Joe was, how old they are, and various other factors — you normally engage an actuary to calculate it. They can also recover compensation for their own pain and suffering in consequence of the loss of Joe, but the amount of this is capped by statute at (I think) €35,000/ That's 35k in total, not 35k per bereaved family member.

all claims are now statute barred. You have 2 years to bring a personal injury claim, not 21!

LS400 said:

Whilst that maybe the case, a good barrister could challenge same..

Click to expand...

A good barrister that would successfully challenge the accepted convention would cost one arm plus one leg.

The anticipated return would need to be extraordinary to pursue this option.

Monkey47 said:

She accepted an offer of 18.5k in 2006 but was told that my father's claim had died with him

Click to expand...

I'm confused, how did they make an offer in 2006 & then say the claim was void after the offer was accepted?

The offer was made three weeks after my father passed away. My mother rejected the offer of 11k for herself and notified the solicitor that my dad had died. He informed her that the offer for my dad had been withdrawn as a result of his death. She accepted a revised offer of 18.5k at the end of 2006. In early 2007 she received a cheque for EUR320 for medical fees in respect of my late dad's claim. (even though she was told the insurance company weren't paying out).We were all grieving at the time and didn't question it.

@Ravima they did bring the claim within 2 years!

Monkey47 said:

A week after my father passed away in 2005 an offer was made by the insurance company for 11k and 9k respectively. Understandably my mother was grieving when this offer was made, but she must have rejected it. She accepted an offer of 18.5k in 2006 but was told that my father's claim had died with him. However, insurance company made a token contribution of EUR320 towards my father's medical expenses in 2007.

Click to expand...

What's the issue here? She (must have?) rejected a €20K offer but accepted a subsequent €18,820 payment. What is she looking for?

Monkey47 said:

Is this correct that my father's claim died with him or could this claim be revisited?

Click to expand...

She might want to get an expert opinion from a solicitor on this specific question.

@ClubMan she will get in touch with solicitor who looked after her claim. Many thanks.

But what is she looking for in this situation?