CIN is a non-profit Advocate for Insurance and Health Care Reform.
Postings are cut/paste from other sources. @Cinsurancenews #rally4accidentvictims #ABPetition #CPPbacklog
Hudak is now leaving
politics and has never shown any interest or knowledge in the topic
of auto accident victims or pi lawyers before - so why now that he is
leaving? If he is pushing through the Protection for Motor Vehicle
Accidents Bill to get the government to scrutinize personal injury
lawyers, it is highly likely that the Insurance Bureau of Canada
(IBC) is behind it.
Thank you for signing up with Team Singh in the fight for fair auto insurance rates in Ontario. My promise to you is simple: I'll never stop speaking out on the issues that matter. The reality is that the Ontario Liberal government has the power and the ability to reduce auto insurance rates across the board, and promised to reduce rates for drivers over two years ago. I refuse to let them back down on their promise. I'll keep you informed on our progress and future initiatives in this battle, and feel free to reach out and share your story or concerns. Thank's for the support! Until next time, Jagmeet.
If juries have become cynical it is because the insurance industry
spends inordinate amounts of money, and uses Trump tactics, to launch
ad campaigns to tell the public about so-called rampant insurance
fraud.
The public has come to believe that nearly everyone is fraudulent
without hearing the perspective of accident victims
Most injured parties have to take on their insurer via a legal
battle to receive the income replacement and rehab benefits they
require and are obliged to sign "privacy" or
confidentiality agreements so they can't divulge the settlement or
how they were treated at mediation or in an examination for
discovery.
Ending the use of jury trials in personal injury cases doesn’t
have much to do with restricting freedom of speech for insurers who
will undoubtedly continue with their fight to reduce claims costs
under the guise of a fight on fraud.
The constant maligning of MVA
victims over decades by the IBC/insurers in advertising has had the
intended consequence of negatively influencing the public and that
has included potential jurors. This is not just one case.
In
Bruff-Murphy v Gunawardena, 2016 http://canlii.ca/t/gmr5x there’s
an acknowledgement that the expert evidence that the Judge found
questionable may not have been viewed in the same way by the jury.
Juries are made up of ordinary people with the ordinary expectation
that the evidence they are presented with is honest. Anyone working
in the personal injury field knows that this is often not the case
when it comes to Ontario’s ‘experts’ whose medical opinions are
relied on by insurers to delay and deny legitimate claims
Auto
insurance is a dirty game played out in our courts and if the flawed
evidence is going to be allowed in the door you can’t expect the
ordinary jurors to filter out the junk medicine replete with biased
or flawed opinions and come to a just decision.
According to StatsCan
there are over 59,000 (2015) auto insurance related cases on the
docket in Ontario; aside from pointing out that this is indicative of
an unaddressed problem with Ontario’s auto insurance, it’s a
massive amount of money being laid out by taxpayers when 50% of
claims are denied and end up in hearings.
According to a recent report from the Financial Services
Commission of Ontario (FSCO), rates went up by an average of 1.5 per
cent in the third quarter, which follows an average increase of 0.33
per cent the quarter before. Source/more: http://oshawaexpress.ca/auto-insurance-rates-up-again/?platform=hootsuite
It would seem that David Cheifetz, a now retired defence lawyer,
can be as insulting to auto insurance claimants via his incredibly
ignorant statements to the Chair of FAIRAssociation.ca
(not-for-profit motor vehicle accident victim group seeking
insurance reform) as so many of the rogue IME assessors are to
claimants they assess, whom they deny in order to keep their
lucrative insurer-paid jobs.
Victim’s group
calls for the Auditor General and the Ontario Ombudsman to
investigate what is happening to Ontario’s injured and disabled
citizens
TORONTO, November
17, 2015 PRESS RELEASE - Ontario auto insurers are poised to make
higher profits on the backs of Ontario’s disabled and injured MVA
victims in 2016 while continuing to build up the provincial deficit
by downloading the expense of victims to the taxpayers. Recently
passed legislation means that coverage for the most injured MVA
victims will be cut in half.
In October Ontario’s
over 9 million drivers learned through the Lazar Prisman Report that
they had been overcharged for auto insurance and likely overpaid by
$1.5 billion in the last two years alone.
In recent weeks we
learned just how challenging recovery is and how poorly the WSIB
injured workers are treated in the Prescription Over-Ruled: Report on
How Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Systematically
Ignores the Advice of Medical Professionals.
How are these two
stories related? Both systems are focused on their bottom line
profits and their investments and not on recovery or the best
interests of their clients. Both systems are based on medical
evidence to support or deny claims; access to treatments and benefits
relies on it. So what happens if those medical examinations aren’t
reliable?
Ontario’s auto
insurance companies have been delaying and denying their customer’s
claims by way of poor quality or biased medical opinion reports in
much the same way as is happening at the WSIB. Many of the same
experts are employed under the two systems and those assessors who
are auto insurers’ “preferred vendors” of these “independent”
assessments are often beholden to the company that pays them. Similar
to the WSIB assessment model where expectations are to be met or
there are consequences.
Providing auto
insurers’ with “favourable” medico-legal opinions by
minimizing/trivializing legitimate injuries is unethical and it
should be treated as a form of fraud. It is after all the mirror
image of the type of fraud the FSCO, the Insurance Bureau of Canada
and the WSIB say they won’t tolerate.
The insurers’
assessment is the only component of our broken Ontario auto insurance
regime that has escaped regulatory scrutiny. It is the corrupted
insurer medico-legal (IME/IE) assessment system that stands between
injured claimants and their access to the Statutory Accident Benefits
(SABs).
The current
legislation allows auto insurers to deny policy benefits (including
treatment, income replacement, attendant care, etc.) to seriously
injured auto victims solely on the basis of the opinions of these
second opinion insurer assessments commissioned to question the
validity of the diagnosis and prognosis of attending physicians and
treatment providers.
No matter how many
attending physicians attest to the legitimacy of an injury ultimately
the insurer assessor’s opinion (even if unqualified or biased)
trumps those of the attending physicians’ in terms of the injured
claimant’s eligibility for treatment and benefits.
The legislative
changes and cuts to coverage will find many untreated and injured MVA
victims dumped onto our OHIP and public supports systems. Insurers
have been taking advantage of the taxpayer who ends up paying the
costs of car crash survivors through Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario
Disability Support Program (ODSP). Insurers’ profits and WSIB books
get balanced while victims end up impoverished and at the food bank.
Ontario’s injured
and disabled individuals deserve better treatment at the hands of our
government be they car crash survivors or WSIB claimants. They have
the right to expect to have their medical conditions addressed
through the recommendations of their treating physicians and
providers who shouldn’t be second-guessed by “hired gun”
insurer ‘experts’.
We ask that the
Ontario Ombudsman look into the systemic abuse of Ontario’s victims
and why the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and the Minister
of Finance have failed to protect the interests and well-being of
injured Ontarians with meaningful regulation and enforcement.
We ask the Auditor
General to look into the reasons why the Minister of Finance (MOF)
has not taken action on the Auditor General’s 2011 report
recommendation that an update on the assessment of health system
costs be done. These are the costs to the taxpayer through our
medical systems that should be paid by Ontario’s insurers through a
transfer of funds. Health care costs and the volume of MVA victims
dependent on our social supports have increased substantially since
the inception of No-Fault insurance. Yet the transfer of funds from
Ontario's insurers to the province has not increased since 2006
before the majority of MVA victims have had their med/rehab claims
capped at $3500.00 in 2010, down from $100,000.00 in previous years.
We would ask the
Auditor General to go further and assess the cost of the public
supports to unpaid MVA victims and WSIB claimants when they are
downloaded to OW, ODSP and ultimately CPP Disability. Ontario’s
insurers will slash benefits in half to $1 million for
med/rehab/attendant care for the most catastrophically injured MVA
victims in June of 2016. This will have far reaching costs to
taxpayers who not only pay the highest auto insurance premiums in
Canada but who are also going to have to pick up the majority of the
costs of seriously injured MVA victims and provide additional
services through OHIP.
Our auto insurance
system is surely broken when insurers are so routinely using our
courts as a tool to deny claims. According to StatCan there are over
61,000 auto insurance related cases waiting for hearings in Ontario
civil court and over 19,000 more MVA victims at the Financial
Services waiting for hearings. All of these delays and denials have a
cost and insurers don’t seem to be the ones paying for it.
SOURCE FAIR
Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform is a
not-for-profit organization of MVA victims and their supporters.
http://www.fairassociation.ca/
For further
information: Media Contact: Rhona DesRoches, 705 543-0574,
fairautoinsurance@gmail.com
Dr. Fred Lazar and
Dr. Eli Prisman have updated the 2013 report to include data for
2014. The update found that consumers likely overpaid by $1.5 billion
in the last two years alone. This includes overpayments of $700
million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of
the $840 million in 2013. In addition to overpaying for insurance,
the report concluded that the total industrywide profits in 2014
alone were 10.6 per cent – or nearly twice the levels considered
reasonable. To read more about auto insurance and to download a copy
of the report, click the “Download The Report” icon on the right
side of this page.....
Why is the Ontario government taking away money they deserve and transferring it to the insurance industry?
How nice for the insurance industry. Take money from deserving accident victims and give it to insurance companies.
Instead of increasing the deductible the government ought to abolish it.
There’s no principled reason to apply a deductible....
The stated aim of
the deductible is to eliminate “nuisance” cases from the system.
But that is achieved by the threshold. The deductible is just another
way to line the pockets of auto insurance companies. If the Ontario
government sees the need to tie the deductible to inflation,why
are no-fault accident benefits not tied to inflation?.......
Last week, an updated study from York University
School of Business Professors Fred Lazar and Eli Prisman was released
that reveals consumers likely overpaid $1.5 billion in the last two
years for auto insurance. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or
about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840
million ($120 per policy) in 2013.....
TORONTO, Oct. 15, 2015 /CNW/ - An updated study released today provides alarming new data on auto insurance in Ontario.
The study, conducted by York University Schulich School of Business Professors Fred Lazar and Eli Prisman, reveals that consumers likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840 million ($120 per policy) in 2013......
The price of car insurance is always a hot topic in this province. It
costs Ontarians more than double to drive here, than anywhere else in
Canada. New figures released today show rates have fallen marginally,
less than 1%… and now an independent report found the auto insurance
industry is raking in large government guaranteed profits. As Kate
Carnegie reports, the liberals admitted today they have more work to do
to lower the rates for drivers....
Since auto insurance is mandatory in Ontario, information
on how these companies rank should be made available. We have created
two surveys to collect this information.....
Tammy Kirkwood said the province’s plan to reduce
auto-insurance benefits that was passed as part of the budget earlier
this year will severely hurt crash victims requiring extensive care....
Hundreds
protest the Ontario government’s proposed auto insurance cuts outside
Queen's Park in Toronto on June 3, 2015. (Dave Abel/Toronto Sun)
A slugging match recently erupted between car insurance companies and Ontario personal injury lawyers.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) opened by claiming the public
needs regulatory oversight of contingency fees charged by personal
injury lawyers.
The IBC feels a change is necessary to protect consumers and allow
the government to evaluate the impact of lawyers’ fees on the auto
insurance system.
The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) countered by releasing a study it commissioned concerning auto insurance premiums.
According to the study, prepared by two professors at York
University’s Schulich School of Business, “consumers in Ontario may have
overpaid for auto insurance by between $3 and $4 billion over the
period 2001 to 2013.”
The OTLA urged an independent “thorough and truly transparent” review of auto insurance by Ontario’s Auditor General.
Reacting quickly, the IBC fired back through a press release,
pointing the finger back at personal injury lawyers claiming, “lawyers’
fees are simply too high and have a significant impact on the cost of
auto insurance.”
The IBC supported its conclusion by claiming some lawyers charge 40%,
while others between 25% and 33% of any settlement or judgment.
I doubt many lawyers would dare charge a 40% contingency fee, although even a 25% to 33% fee may be too high in some cases.
But, the IBC forgot to mention clients don’t pay the entire
contingency fee as a good part of the fee is paid by the insurance
company.
To rub it in further, the IBC stated, “In 2013, lawyers received an
estimated $500 million from injury claimants out of their insurance
settlements for bodily injury claims. These are real dollars that never
make it to the claimant. IBC will continue to fight for increased
transparency so that consumers can actually see where their insurance
dollars go.”
But I don’t think insurers want to open the transparency can of worms.
If they want to talk about “real dollars” that don’t make it to
claimants, check out the vast sums paid by insurers for their so-called
independent medical examinations (IMEs), used to belittle or deny
claims.
According to the most recent Ontario Health Claims Database,
insurance companies paid approximately $372 million for IMEs for
accidents taking place in the last four years.
In some years, insurance companies forced almost half of all
claimants to attend IMEs and in each year the average amount paid per
assessed claimant for these exams exceeded the average amount paid per
claimant for all medical and rehabilitation expenses.
Sending claimants for multiple and expensive assessments to
pro-insurer experts is a major contributor to insurers’ costs and takes
“real dollars” out of the pockets of claimants.
That’s not to say lawyers are free of blame.
There’s a long history of lawyers neglecting to act diligently to
expose insurer experts who file partisan reports, sometimes outside
their sphere of expertise, used by insurers to delay and deny claims.
As well, quality control at some law firms is substandard.
The FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform has
recently posted an announcement stating, “ALERT – we are hearing about
more and more cases where time limitations for filing have lapsed due to
plaintiff’s legal representatives failing to meet limitation period
deadlines.”
Then again, motor vehicle litigation and accident benefits claims are
highly complex and insurance company tactics often lead to increased
fees.
And if the insurance industry wants to point fingers at personal
injury lawyers, perhaps they ought to make complete disclosure of the
money they spend on defence lawyers and adjusters to deny, delay and
defend claims.
Furthermore, how much do insurers pay to fund their massive public
relations campaigns -- including political contributions to those in
power -- which they effectively use to portray accident victims as
opportunistic, malingering or just plain fraudulent?
It seems there is a lot of mud that can be thrown at each side in this messy debate.
But while the debate drags on, insurers continue to exact high premiums and lawyers receive handsome payments for their work.
And accident victims? They’re stuck in the middle.
Chairman of The Board, Chief
Executive Officer, Chairman of Allstate Insurance Company, Chief
Executive Officer of Allstate Insurance Company, Director of
Allstate Insurance Company and Chairman of Executive
Committee The
Allstate Corporation
