Personal Injury Claim

[Monkey47]

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.

 

[Peanuts20]

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

 

[Salvadore]

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

 

[Monkey47]

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

 

[Monkey47]

@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.

 

[Salvadore]

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

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.

 

[TomEdison]

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.

 

[LS400]

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,

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.

 

[TomEdison]

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.

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.