This is deplorable. The Liberal government continues to allow insurance companies to exploit Ontario drivers

This is deplorable. The Liberal government continues to allow insurance companies to exploit Ontario drivers. #OnPoli pic.twitter.com/34metQFzux

— Jagmeet Singh (@theJagmeetSingh) October 19, 2016

Jagmeet Singh (NDP) has put this page up http://www.fairratesontario.com/

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.

Source/more:

https://twitter.com/jagmeetNDP/status/788821925174710272

This is a Xmas Wish that We hope everyone will RETWEET

Being delayed the help you need..is a crime! 

Wish list 4 Santa. Suffer financially everyday waiting for insurance approvals. We are here 4 U.

Sources: https://t.co/j86f6glLeW

https://twitter.com/busted_bucket/status/808302759535669248

I’ve come to the conclusion that the question is no longer, “What’s wrong with ICBC?”

The question is, “Is there anything right?”

I wrote two previous columns on ICBC’s financial woes — one on a seniors discount that costs an estimated $100 million annually, another on the climbing cost of litigation. Those were but two contributors to the corporation’s financial woes. There are many strands that one can pull to explain ICBC’s unravelling.
Readers responded. Some, no surprise, were civilians complaining about what they felt was ICBC’s unfair tactics. But several were from insiders to the process — lawyers, doctors and claim adjusters. They identified a problem affecting ICBC’s bottom line the public never hears about.
It was the high cost of medical reports.

Wrote one senior ICBC injury adjuster, whose job is to settle lawyer-represented claims:

“Lawyers routinely hire experts (doctors) to produce reports to support how badly injured the individual is/was from the accident. It is quite common to have two to five different experts report on a single file. These experts charge between $4,000-$6,000 to examine the patient and write a report. ICBC will have to hire their own experts, typically one to two per file for the same costs as above.

“We often settle a claim, for example, between $50,000 to $100,000 and then pay on top of that between $30,000 and $40,000 for costs and disbursements. So not only are the lawyers making tidy sums, but the medical experts make a fair chunk off the litigation process as well.”.....

........There is a large number of medical professionals in B.C. that are making well in excess of $1 million per year from writing medical reports now.......

Source/more: http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/pete-mcmartin-medical-reports-make-up-major-chunk-of-icbc-expenditure-insiders-reveal?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1481157840

Insurers must provide a Reason if they request an Examination Under Oath

In Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Frank McKeown (2016), Aviva brought an application to determine whether an insurer is obligated to state their reason for an examination under oath (EUO) in order to compel a person claiming statutory accident benefits (SABS) to attend an EUO, if requested by their insurer, pursuant to subsection 33 (2) of the SABS. Aviva was seeking a legal order to compel the named respondents to attend their respective EUOs.

Source/more:

http://www.personalinjurylawyerservice.ca/blog/insurers-must-provide-a-reason-if-they-request-an-examination-under-oath

Ontario psychologist 'alarmed by what's happening to WSIB claimants'

Dr. Keith Klaasen, who has been working with people who have suffered brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder for the last 22 years, is part of a group of Ontario psychologists who claim their patients are being unfairly denied compensation.

 Source/more:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-psychologist-alarmed-by-what-s-happening-to-wsib-claimants-1.3306891

LAT hearings held in writing 'fundamental denial of justice'

“These people are not being given the opportunity to come before the tribunal and have their credibility assessed, have their doctors testify and have their lawyers cross-examine the insurance company’s doctors,” Singer tells AdvocateDaily.com. “Instead, it’s all done in writing.

Source/more:

http://www.advocatedaily.com/darryl-singer-lat-hearings-held-in-writing-fundamental-denial-of-justice.html

People with back injuries treated with opioids off work longer: study

Disability claimants who are off work because of low back pain stay off longer if they're being treated with opioids, according to a new study out of McMaster University....

Painkillers linked to hundreds of deaths....

More:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/people-with-back-injuries-treated-with-opioids-off-work-longer-study-1.3206219

Hundreds rally against cuts to auto insurance benefits

By Maryam Shah, Toronto Sun

First posted: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 08:22 PM EDT | Updated: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 08:27 PM EDT  

TORONTO - Changes to auto insurance benefits for motor vehicle accident victims passed in the Ontario legislature Wednesday as part of the provincial budget.

“God help us all,” Tammy Kirkwood said upon hearing the news. “We’re getting a lot less coverage for a lot more money and I’m not sure why.”

Kirkwood was one of hundreds of protesters at Queen’s Park rallying against reductions in auto insurance benefits which they say will have the most effect on victims with catastrophic injuries.

The 47-year-old Orillia woman said protesters were “flabbergasted” that the provincial government “was trying to disable our resources and our funding to recover.”

Part of the changes to auto insurance rules under the new budget mean that combined coverage for medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits for the catastrophically injured will be cut in half from its current cap of $2 million to $1 million.

Kirkwood survived a 2008 collision when a dump truck hit her car. She had to be pried free from her vehicle by firefighters, and was deemed catastrophically injured.

She says she was only able to move forward because she had access to the services she needed.

Unable to return to work, Kirkwood now volunteers as an advocate with FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform.

New Democratic Party MPP Jagmeet Singh spoke at the rally in support of their cause.

The cuts affect “the most vulnerable people,” such as people with brain and spinal cord injuries, he said.

“They need benefit coverage ... to live an at least somewhat decent life,” Singh pointed out.

A spokesman for Finance Minister Charles Sousa said the government is “working hard to create a fair and affordable insurance system” for the province’s 9.4 million drivers.

Ontario is “the only province in Canada to offer exclusive catastrophic coverage,” Kelsey Ingram said in an e-mail.

“Catastrophically impaired claimants will also continue to be able to sue an at-fault party to recover damages for health-care expenses and potentially other claims,” she added.

The provincial government is also committed to making sure any savings from these changes do not result in “excess profits” for insurance companies, Ingram said.

“This is about lowering premiums while providing support and protection for all Ontario drivers,” she said.

maryam.shah@sunmedia.ca

MPP Singh speaks out against changes to Accident Benefits

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LjJij_9bda

FAIR letter to CPSO regarding Transparency Project Phase 2

To: transparencyproject@cpso.on.ca

‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

579A Lakeshore Rd. East, PO Box 39522

Mississauga, ON, L5G 4S6

http://www.fairassociation.ca/

March 31, 2015                                                                                                                                 

Sent by email

Communications Dept, Transparency Project
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario
80 College St., Toronto, ON, M5G 2E2

RE: Transparency Project Phase 2

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the CPSO’s proposed Transparency by-law changes. FAIR speaks for many of Ontario’s motor vehicle accident (MVA) victims who are especially vulnerable to medical abuse. Unlike ordinary citizens, Ontario’s accident victims are examined an alarming number of times by third party for-hire medical opinion vendors as well as their own treating physicians.

FAIR posts links to many Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) decisions and Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) arbitration decisions about Ontario’s ‘independent’ medical opinion providers on our website. It is clear that MVA victims are often re-victimized by Ontario physicians whose bias favours the insurance company on whom they depend to make a very handsome pay check. The anonymity of the physicians within these decisions has caused yet another layer of harm by way of failing to protect the public and in the bargain harming the reputation of all good physicians.

Greater transparency would go a long way toward instilling confidence that CPSO really is providing oversight and enforcement of the regulations and not just going about the business of protecting an elite group of doctors whose volume of questionable work product saves Ontario’s insurers millions of dollars every year. This creates medical havoc for treating physicians who must deal with the fallout of the abuse to their patients and the roadblocks to treatment that these poor quality reports generate.

Regarding Cautions-in-person and SCERPs

CPSO has a long history of ignoring complaints. There is a concern that those who have abused Ontario’s MVA victims in the past and who have a history of prior complaints will be starting out fresh as if their record of complaints never existed and doesn't matter.

CPSO has often cloaked multiple offenders in secrecy and protected the physician’s interests over that of very vulnerable patients.  Some years ago a College investigator recorded that a well-known Insurer Medical Examination (IME) provider said that “in his view, there are three types of patients:

1.       Patients with nothing wrong with them who are “pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes”

2.       Patients with no problem who think they have a problem. These patients actually believe that there is something wrong with them, even though there is not.

3.       Patients with minor problem who have exaggerated this problem into something much bigger than it is.”

Ultimately the physician who had revealed his bias and potential to stand in the way of treatments for Ontario’s MVA victims was only sent for a private and confidential oral caution.  CPSO, at that time, was investigating multiple complaints about the bias and poor quality medical reports this vendor of medical opinions was churning out by the thousands. That same IME physician went on to provide flawed medical reports for many years for many thousands of auto accident victims in more than one Canadian province as well as Ontario’s WSIB claimants. Not once did CPSO do anything to protect the public and the physician assessor was ultimately celebrated by his peers for his contributions to the assessment industry.

This type of secrecy costs the treating physicians who are actually trying to assist their patients’ recovery and the honest medical assessors who are doing a good job. The cost to the victims of the medical abuse is evident in the almost 100,000 cases of unpaid MVA claims in our courts right now. Many of those people eventually end up on our public supports because their claims were derailed on the basis of some bogus and biased expert medical report. When Ontario’s wealthy insurers use the medical profession to bolster their denials, it costs us all.

There is a concern that going forward many of the third party physician assessors will fight the exposure of a more open policy and because of their greater wealth will be able to mount even more appeals from College censures. We hope that Ontario’s treating physicians whose patients are harmed will be taking a more active role in protecting their patients from medical predatory practices and that the College will now be listening to those members as well.

CPSO should reach back into their past records of the thousands of complaints made by auto accident victims. Those CPSO members that have had multiple complaints and secret cautions in the past decade should have them posted on the public register. It is not at all unusual for a MVA victim to have to wait 10 years or more to have their case heard in a court where the biased or unqualified report will be thrown out by a judge at a hearing. Those people wouldn't be there if not for these shoddy and biased reports and the College should make every effort to protect the public as well as undo the harm that they've caused with what has been an empty promise of regulation and oversight.

Regarding Criminal Charges

We agree with the proposed amendment. We also agree with the submission from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario that, in addition to including convictions and charges under the Criminal Code and Health Insurance Act, the CPSO should include charges for offences under PHIPA on the public register going forward.

Regarding Licences in other jurisdictions and Discipline findings in other jurisdictions

We agree that this information should be posted on the CPSO public register. Unfortunately many of those physicians who work for Ontario’s insurers also export their bias and shoddy work outside of Ontario.

FAIR appreciates the open nature of this consultation process and that progress is and will continue to be made to protect the public.

Rhona DesRoches
Board Chair, Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

Why time is important when hurt in a collision

When you have been injured in a motor vehicle crash it is very important to seek the assistance of a lawyer as soon as possible. There are two main reasons for doing so. Firstly and most importantly, there is legislation in Ontario that limits the time in which a person can bring a law suit. For the vast majority of cases, this time frame is two years.

http://oatleyvigmond.com/why-time-is-important-when-hurt-in-a-collision/#.VRreQY5qRqE

Local voice against wrongful benefit denials still speaking out

March, 12, 2015 - 11:11:26 AM

Local voice against wrongful benefit denials still speaking out

BY SHANNON DUFF EXPRESS MANAGING EDITOR

Editor’s note: The following is the second installment of a story featuring local insurance advocate Jokelee Vanderkop and her efforts to help legitimate claimants ensure they receive their rightful benefits.

Palmerston – After a life-altering motor vehicle collision and more than a decade of battling to receive the insurance benefits she paid for, Palmerston resident Jokelee Vanderkop said she refocused her anger into an energetic effort to expose “what goes on for the majority of motor vehicle accident claimants.”
Those efforts resulted in not only her book — So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-off — but also the opportunity to speak on CBC’s Ontario Today radio show in January.

“The host said she had never seen the [call-in] board light up so completely before a show had even started,” Vanderkop said. “The accident victims who spoke of their negative experiences with their insurers were very moving. One woman said she had spent six months in intensive care after an accident and was denied benefits. Another said the insurer’s lawyer told her that he was paid over $500,000 per year to deny her.”

Ten days after the show, Vanderkop received an explanation of benefits from her insurer, stating that since she now had earnings, the company could not consider further payments until it received copies of her earning statements.
Vanderkop said the letter left her shaking her head.

“What earnings?” she asked. “No mention was made of how [I] was supposedly making these earnings.”

In a February interview with finance and consumer journalist Ellen Roseman, Vanderkop stated the insurance company does have a right to request information, but “normally they tell you it’s required in order to continue benefits. In my case, they cut me off first.”

Joe Daly of Desjardins General Insurance Co. said the situation was a misunderstanding and indicated questions arose once the company learned of Vanderkop’s book.

“When we learned that Ms. Vanderkop published and is promoting a book, we sent her a standard form asking for copies of her tax returns,” he explained to Roseman. “Under the legislation, a portion of any income she earns from the book, or any other source, could be deducted from the weekly income replacement benefits we send her. We naturally assume she wrote the book to earn income.”

“If her tax returns indicate she has little or no income from the book or other sources, then her weekly entitlement payments will not be affected.”
Daly continued, “In retrospect, the claims advisor who decided to send the form obviously didn’t understand the realities of publishing in Canada. It’s tough to make any money writing a book.”

Indeed, the book has been more of an expense than anything, said Vanderkop.
Rhona DesRoches, chairperson of FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform [FAIRAssociation.ca], a not-for-profit advocacy group for motor-vehicle accident victims and insurance reform, also appeared on the CBC radio show with Vanderkop.

Vanderkop’s and others’ experiences, said DesRoches, indicates that benefits aren’t a sure thing.

“I think it is outrageous that a person’s benefits are always at risk,” she said in an interview with Roseman. “Settling a case with an insurer is no guarantee that the negative experience of making a claim with auto insurance benefits is really over.”

Vanderkop and DesRoches have since kept in contact, joined in their efforts to help legitimate claimants receive their benefits.

FAIR treatment

FAIR is predominately made up of accident victims, their family members and supporters, DesRoches explained.

“We’re a voice for those victims who really can’t speak out for themselves. Accident victims tend not to speak very loudly,” DesRoches said in an interview with The Minto  Express.

“Jokelee is an unusual person in that she speaks up and speaks out. Predominately accident victims are very quiet about what’s happened to them,” she said.

FAIR members advocate for change and education. “We find a lot of accident victims don’t know what they’re entitled to or why this is happening to them. People are very isolated, and they’re not sure why,” said DesRoches.

The association was founded in 2011, and DesRoches, a member since 2012, said motor accident victims finally have a voice at the table.

“Prior to FAIR, there was always complications,” she said. “But, there really wasn’t anyone at the table to give the accident victims’ perspective on how difficult the system is, and why it isn’t working.”

“Auto insurance isn’t just unaffordable, it’s also problematic in the quality of service it delivers,” DesRoches continued. “We’ve made ourselves a voice. A lot of what we do is directed towards our legislators and various other stakeholders in the auto insurance field. We do consult and submit on various issues that come up.”

Vanderkop, whose book is available at www.deniedbenefitclaims.com and who is available for speaking engagements, says she is now concerned about the recent passing of Bill 15. The Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act is being touted as a good thing, she said, but could only make things more difficult for accident victims making claims.

Editor’s note: Please see next week’s Minto Express for the next installment of this story.

Source: http://www.southwesternontario.ca/news/local-voice-against-wrongful-benefit-denials-still-speaking-out/

$75,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Shoulder Injury

Adding to this site’s archives of pain and suffering awards for shoulder injuries, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder injury sustained in a vehicle collision.

In today’s case (Mir Tabatabaei v. Kular) the  Plaintiff was involved in a 2010 collision caused by the Defendant.  Fault was admitted.  The Plaintiff suffered a chronic shoulder injury which continued to be symptomatic at the time of trial and was expected to pose ongoing difficulties.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Madam Justice Duncan provided the following reasons:

[66]         It is undisputed that the accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries. While pain is subjective I do not doubt the plaintiff’s complaints of pain in his neck which disrupts his sleep and pain in his injured right shoulder which interferes with physical activity including his work as a carpet cleaner. The injuries have affected the plaintiff’s ability to work as much as he did before the accident. He works more slowly than before, cannot complete as many jobs and cannot work as many hours in a day due to the pain in his shoulder. I am not persuaded the plaintiff’s drug use had any appreciable impact on his ability to earn a living. The comment recorded by Dr. Tsung about opium disrupting the plaintiff’s life is not tied to anything specific, such as his employment, and I am not convinced on a balance of probabilities the plaintiff complained that opium use was affecting his job.

[67]         Dr. Tarazi’s opinion provides a deeper examination of the benefits and risks of surgery in the plaintiff’s particular case than does Dr. Goel’s opinion. I prefer to rely on Dr. Tarazi’s report concerning the plaintiff’s shoulder injury and his opinion that surgery is not indicated due to the real possibility of a negative outcome. Based on Dr. Tarazi’s opinion I find the plaintiff’s decision not to have surgery is a reasonable one…

[71]         The plaintiff is 53 years of age. He experiences pain in his right shoulder when he exerts himself. He experiences pain in his neck at night which disrupts his sleep. There is no cure for either of these conditions. His shoulder may get worse and require him to undergo surgery which in turn carries risks. Notwithstanding the pain and discomfort, the plaintiff has continued to work to the extent that he is able and to participate in his previous leisure activities, such as biking and swimming, albeit it to a lesser extent than before the accident. I agree with counsel for the plaintiff that Wong is very similar in terms of the type of injury involved; however, the plaintiff in that case had an additional injury to her knee. Nonetheless, it is a helpful benchmark. In all the circumstances I find an award of $75,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate.

Source: http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/75000-nonpecuniary-assessment-chronic-shoulder-injury?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IcbcLaw+%28ICBC+Law%29

IBC wants regulation for personal injury lawyers

Monday, 23 February 2015 08:00 | Written By Yamri Taddese

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says it would like to see regulatory oversight of how personal injury lawyers structure their contingency fees due to what it calls a major gap in transparency in the auto insurance system.

“We need to at least review this issue. Why aren’t we talking about this?” says Ralph Palumbo, Ontario vice president for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

All key players in the auto insurance system, including insurance companies and rehabilitation providers, must adhere to regulations around their fee structures, says Palumbo, who notes additional players like tow-truck drivers are now subject to regulation thanks to changes under Bill 15.

“It appears that the only major stakeholders in the system that really [aren’t] regulated are personal injury lawyers,” he says.

Palumbo says trial lawyers should file their fee arrangements with the office of the superintendent of insurance or another body that will review the financial impact these fees may or may not have on insurance costs and premiums.

“There is a sense that often providers, whether they’re lawyers or rehab providers, push claims to a higher level so that the awards are higher. That’s the sort of thing that we need to guard against,” says Palumbo.

“No one is saying the claimant shouldn’t get what is reasonable in the circumstances, but we want to make sure there aren’t outside financial pressures that will drive up those costs.”

Barbara Taylor, director of policy at Insurance Bureau of Canada, says the change will protect consumers while allowing the government to track the impact of lawyers’ fees on the auto insurance system.

“First off, we’re asking for a consumer-friendly fee disclosure statement,” she says.

“So that’s something where we want to make sure the consumer has clear transparency on that arrangement that they have with the lawyer. Then we’re asking that that information also be shared with someone like the [Financial Services Commission of Ontario] superintendent, who can then use that information to assess the impact on auto insurance as well as perhaps issue an annual report.”

Ontario Trial Lawyers Association president Steve Rastin says the Insurance Bureau of Canada is suggesting lawyers work harder in order to maximize the value of the case if they have a stake in it.

“You know what, that’s an insult to lawyers,” says Rastin.

“It implies that I won’t do my utmost for my client unless I have a piece in the action. You know what, I think lawyers everywhere should be insulted by the allegation that we’ll work harder for our clients when we have a stake in it.”

He adds: “I work to the best of my ability for every client whether I’m doing the file on a pro bono basis or an hourly rate or contingency rate. To argue that I work harder for somebody because I have a contingency fee, it would be a fundamental violation of the professional code of conduct, our ethical obligations, and I think there are right-thinking lawyers everywhere who put their best effort in for the client no matter how they’re going to be paid.”

Rastin also says there are already sufficient oversight mechanisms in place to guard against improper conduct by lawyers. He calls the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s call for more regulation “a smokescreen” to mask the hefty profits earned by insurance companies.

“I can tell you that what I bill my clients is absolutely transparent,” says Rastin.

“My client knows in the beginning what I’m going to bill them and at the end. For people that are under disability, minors or people in vulnerable situations, we have to get court approval for our accounts. There is already an oversight body in place.

There are lawyers [who] are disciplined for not billing according to proper practices. I don’t want the insurance industry, which meddles in every private area of our lives already, I don’t want them meddling in my personal relationship with my clients.”

Contingency-fee arrangements between lawyers and their clients aren’t to blame for insurance companies’ costs, he adds, noting there are caps in place for the damages plaintiffs can collect for several types of injuries.

Plaintiffs often opt to settle for fear of cost orders that would mean losing their life savings, Rastin adds.

To Rastin, the noise around the issue is a distraction from what he calls “way more serious” concerns with the auto insurance system. “For instance, why are there government-mandated returns on capital for the insurance industry that are something like 11 per cent?” he asks.

Palumbo, however, says it’s only “natural” that lawyers are resistant to regulatory oversight around their fees.
“It’s pretty natural. They have a vested interest in making sure there is no regulatory oversight on their pricing schemes,” he says.

“We don’t think that’s appropriate,” he adds.

Part of the issue, he says, is transparency. “At the end of the day, if the government decides not to impose a cap [on contingency fees], that’s fair enough. But why is this a problem to talk about transparency? I don’t quite understand that.”

The issue isn’t contingency fees themselves, according to Palumbo, but whether those arrangements are always appropriate. “We’re not suggesting for a moment that any of this shouldn’t happen; we’re not against contingency fees. All we’re saying is that the last piece of the [transparency] puzzle is personal injury lawyers, really. No one is reviewing that aspect of the auto insurance system.”

COMMENTS

Discuss IBC wants regulation for personal injury lawyers:

Moira Gracey says:
2015-02-23 07:15 PM
is the IBC suggesting that injured people who have been thrown out of work and are subsisting on the much-reduced accident benefits available be required to pay lawyers up front by the hour? How can the IBC suggest - or the Law Times uncritically report - that lawyers' contingency fees are not regulated? Does Ontario Regulation 195/04 (appropriately entitled "Contingency Fee Arrangements") not count as regulation? Until the insurance industry agrees to a specific tax to fund enough legal aid clinic with enough salaried lawyers to represent all the customers from whom the insurance companies are inappropriately denying benefits, there isn't much alternative to contingency fee arrangements that won't leave injured people high and dry - and insurers laughing all the way to the bank. Insurers should try spending less money fighting claims than they do paying them - that might be a more effective way to lower premiums!

Devils Trumpet says:
2015-02-23 06:30 PM
Sorry to get you excited,the comments were intended for another post that had nothing to do with regulation of lawyers or insurance.My post here was copy and paste,it included a line from a seperate post entirely. I have no knowledge of any insider information regarding Ontario auto insurance.If I did,I doubt very much that I would announce it in this forum. I apologize for my inadvertent mistake,I will double check before I post in the future.

Peter Cozzi says:
2015-02-23 06:05 PM
I have advocated at FSCO for a Consumer Bureau mirroring the Insurance Bureau of Canada to advance the interests of consumers to Government funded by a levy per insurance policy paid for by the same consumers who pay their insurance premiums to Insurance companies every day which in part are used by those insurance companies to fund the IBC. Such a consumer body, properly funded, like the IBC, will be able to inform Government concerning insurance issues from the consumers perspective and thereby provide Government with a balanced view when considering legislative and regulatory changes such as the IBC proposal concerning contingency fees and more.

Tim Boyle says:
2015-02-23 05:56 PM
That Mr. Francis is a shill for the insurance industry is obvious, the only thing unclear is how much he is being paid for being so.

Stew Daroux says:
2015-02-23 05:36 PM
It just amazes me that someone can hold such a lofty position in the insurance industry and really not have a clue regarding the degree to which lawyers are regulated and fee arrangements are scrutinized. In British Columbia there is legislating specifying the maximum percentage fee a lawyer can charge without prior court approval. In addition, clients are notified as part of any Contingency Fee Agreement that they have the right to have the fee ultimately charged reviewed by the Court. They also have recourse to the Law Society of any Province which overseas the practice of lawyers in that jurisdiction. Where is the lack of "regulation" that Mr. Palumbo refers to?

Curious Cat says:
2015-02-23 04:47 PM
What kinds of documents are you alluding to?

Devils a Trumpet says:
2015-02-23 04:10 PM
Another attempt to control every aspect of a claim,the insurance industry once again portrays everyone but themselves as theives while they defraud rate payers and the public.Of course lawyers rip off clients,just not as bad as the government sanctioned theft by the insurance companies. Not one participant other than the claimant has one scintilla of integrity,their just a bunch of criminals running the system. Wait till insurance insider documents begin to surface soon.

Brian Francis says:
2015-02-23 12:30 PM
RE: "Plaintiff lawyers are the only ones fighting for the clients' rights... Plaintiff lawyers (OTLA) advocate for their own interests - not the interests of injured claimants. They aren't always the same. If that weren't true OTLA would long ago have fought against the proliferation of rogue experts who inhabit the system - rather than happily profit from shoddy assessments and endless assessment battles. The only people buying OTLA's "fearless champions of the injured" rhetoric are the plaintiff lawyers.Maybe if OTLA revoked the membership of lawyers who over-bill so badly they are written up in even the mainstream press - and revoked the membership of lawyers who blame dead students for the firm's failings - these indignant protestations wouldn't ring so hollow.

Darryl Singer says:
2015-02-23 12:11 PM
The entire personal injury system is stacked against plaintiffs. The statutory threshold, $30,000 deductible, powerful insurers who sit on AB money for years before they pay it out for necessary treatment. Plaintiff lawyers are the only ones fighting for the clients' rights and attempting to level the playing field. Certainly the insurers do not care. And the provincial government has continually made changes that benefit only the insurers and make it more difficult for the victims to collect.

Darryl Singer says:
2015-02-23 12:06 PM
Lawyers are already regulated by the Law Society and in many cases the Superior Court. The insurance industry has no place in the lawyer-client relationship. If the insurers actually paid what they were supposed to pay to accident victims, when they were supposed to pay, then there would be no need for personal injury lawyers in the first place. Lawyer's fees have no bearing on insurance rates. And the marketplace dictates. If my fees are patently unfair then I will not have any clients.

Brian Francis says:
2015-02-23 10:10 AM
How ironic. This column (Court rejects attempt to blame articling student for delay) in today's Law Times offers even more reasons why Ontario personal injury plaintiff lawyers need oversight. OTLA talks about oversight as an "insult". It is insulting to consumers (injured auto accident victims) to hear plaintiff lawyers trying to download their failings on to students.

Brian Francis says:
2015-02-23 09:41 AM
Raston characterizes oversight of personal injury plaintiff OTLA lawyers as an "insult". What is an insult is systemic over-billing - staggering unreglated, self-awarded premiums - and unfair CFAs. A glance at the FAIR website offers ample illustration of endless plaintiff lawyer over- billing problems. Added to the over-billing problem is another "insult" to clients in the form of OTLA's stubborn, obstructionist stance toward cleaning up the IME/IE system (proliferated with rogue "experts") which is driving up Ontario's auto insurance litigation costs by causing endless assessment battles. But what,exactly, is wrong with a"a consumer-friend ly fee disclosure statement". How is that an "insult"? And what do accident victims think? Why not ask FAIR? Perhaps on this issue (if no other) the IBC and FAIR can find common ground?



Source: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201502234500/headline-news/ibc-wants-regulation-for-personal-injury-lawyers

The Crash Tested Submission to Minister of Finance on Auto Insurance

C.Sousa,
Minister of Finance

Mr. Sousa,I am a motor vehicle accident survivor and a former small business owner however,I am not a low-information voter. I am perplexed,alarmed,dismayed and disgusted that your Ministry continues to acquiesce to each and every demand put forth by the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC). Ontario residents have seen benefits ravenously slashed to the bone or outright eliminated with no recourse.Meanwhile the insurance company plays games with rates and exponentially increases shareholder value on the backs of the injured,some catastrophically .Your government has forced legitimate accident claimants onto Social Services and require hospital care provided by the taxpayer while the insurer is allowed to avoid any responsibility and evade their contractual obligations.

Fraud has largely been perpetrated by organized crime and not the majority of the public yet you and your Ministry have fecklessly bought into the caustic propaganda the IBC has pervasively promoted.You've even outrageously come out as their boorish cheerleader touting what a wonderful thing these changes to auto insurance will do for Ontario drivers and those injured in a vehicle accident.You have never spoken specifically about Bill 15 but instead given the public your obtuse, irksome and mendacious platitudes and sound as if the new legislation is an accomplishment.

Your party claims to be the guardian of compassion but the punitive actions leveled against injured victims,including those who can no longer defend themselves,but you have chosen to accept personal cash benefits from an industry you and your Ministry are mandated to regulate.You are no longer serving the people,something you swore to do.

I will not get into issues such as contemptuously removing the Constitutional right to seek remedy in court.I will not waste my time pointing out the egregious and  inherent problems with the removal of experienced arbitrators and scandalously replacing them with political appointees,that is absurd.There is little point in bring up the insurance industry's proclivity to use rouge doctors who produce bogus medical assessments.You are fully and completely aware of the widespread damage along with personal and financial grief caused by your horrible actions injured accident victims and their families will now face for a lifetime all for your exclusive purposes.You have abdicated your responsibility as Minister of Finance for personal gain while adamantly ignoring the issues that many,including myself,have tried unsuccessfully to convey to you and your Ministry regarding auto insurance.

I have no confidence you will listen to anyone but the IBC and this is largely a public relations exercise that will be neglected just as every single person,group and organization has been throughout the phony public consultations that your government held leading up to the passing of Bill 15.May I suggest that the pair of shoes you buy for budget day be a pair of sandals,they're full of holes,I have every confidence the symbolism will be forebodingly apt.

thecrashtested.com 




Source: thecrashtested.com