Mr. Kevin Thompson:

First, the book of quantum reflects the prevailing level of awards. As an industry, we welcome the updating of the book of quantum, which basically reflects what is happening in regard to the amounts being paid. We look to reference that book of quantum, as does the injuries board. The Judiciary is not compelled but it is minded to make reference to the book of quantum. One aspect we are happy with is that the book of quantum brings an element of stability to the claims environment. In recent years we have seen a lot of volatility in the claims environment, in particular in terms of the variance in awards for a similar injury. As this is not good for insurers or for business, the book of quantum has been good in this respect. As an industry, we look to use it where we can, as does the injuries board.

Unfortunately, what we have seen is that a high proportion of the cases which go through the injuries board are rejected and end up in the court settlement channel. As we know, and this was borne out by the Department of Finance report under the cost of insurance working group, once it goes through the claims settlement channel in the courts, it becomes a lot more expensive, which, ultimately, has to feed through to premiums. What we would like to see is a more timely updating of the book of quantum. To be fair to the Government, the cost of insurance working group report, published in January of this year, also recommended that this should be the case. In regard to the prevailing level of awards, it also recommended that these awards should be benchmarked against other jurisdictions. That is part of the recommendations on which we are working with Government, through the Personal Injuries Commission, under retired President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns. Hopefully, that will help in terms of knowing where award levels should be set.

The Senator makes a fair point in regard to the claims database in that there is no database which will give the information, claim per claim. Again, that issue was identified within the cost of insurance working group report in January 2017 and it is one of the recommendations that a national claims database should be set up under the auspices of the Central Bank. As an industry, we are working with the Government and the Central Bank to develop that claims database, although it will take time to develop. A similar model was developed in the UK and it took close to ten years to complete. That is not to say it will take us that long because there is impetus from our side and from other stakeholders, particularly the Government and the Central Bank, to make sure we can bring it to fruition. As an interim step, what we have done to try to highlight what is going on within the claims environment is to work with the Department of Finance, which has been publishing ad hocclaims information on a quarterly basis, albeit at an aggregate level. That has also worked well.

On the Senator's third point on the settlement of claims, where he gave the example of the person who had a tip in his car, I acknowledge it is a difficult area. While it is hard for me to comment on specific cases, the committee members will have seen recently that insurers have adopted a more robust approach in regard to claims settlement. It is difficult for insurers because they have to tread a fine line. We have to remember that the majority of claimants are honest claimants, and when they make a claim, they should be paid quickly and at the appropriate level for their injury.

Equally, however, there is a degree to which insurers will have to adopt a more robust approach. I think we are seeing that emerge, most recently in cases which have been published in the media. The industry is investing heavily in more robust claims settlement and in fighting fraudulent claims. That trend will continue and will hopefully alleviate the cost of claims, which will ultimately lead to lower premiums.