The Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized the invasion of a person's privacy as a common law tort, and not just an infraction under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)
In Jones v. Tsige, the appellant, Sandra Jones, discovered that the respondent, Winnie Tsige, had been looking at her banking records without her knowledge or permission. Tsige and Jones did not know one another, but they both worked for the same bank and Tsige had formed a common-law relationship with Jones' ex-husband.
Tsige had argued that it is not open to the court to adapt the common law to deal with the invasion of privacy on the ground that privacy is already the subject of the PIPEDA legislation. "It is submitted that expanding the reach of the common law in this area would interfere with these carefully crafted regimes and that any expansion of the law relating to the protection of privacy should be left to parliament and the legislature," wrote Justice Robert J. Sharpe in the decision.
Sharpe noted PIPEDA is federal legislation dealing with ‘organizations' that are subject to federal jurisdiction. While the bank that employed both Jones and Tsige is subject to PIPEDA, Sharpe listed three reasons why Jones should not be restricted to the remedy of a PIPEDA complaint against the bank.
They included:
• Jones would be forced to lodge a complaint against her own employer, rather than against Tsige, the wrongdoer.
• Tsige acted as a rogue employee of the bank, contrary to the banks' policy, and that may provide the bank with a complete answer to Jones.
• The remedies available under PIPEDA do not include damages, and thus it is difficult to see what Jones would gain from such a complaint.
"In my view, it is appropriate for this court to confirm the existence of a right of action for intrusion upon seclusion," Sharpe wrote. "Recognition of such a cause of action would amount to an incremental step that is consistent with the role of this court to develop the common law in a manner consistent with the changing needs of society."
Sharpe awarded ‘moral' damages in the amount of $10,000.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Raising rate and lowering profit targets not the answer to Ontario auto issues
Raising Ontario's auto insurance rates or getting insurers to lower profit targets will not solve the fundamental issues in Ontario's auto insurance system - a fraud-riddled system that has consumers paying the highest rates in Canada, wrote Barb Addie, president of Baron Insurance Services, in the MSA/Baron Outlook Report: 2011 Q3.
In its December 2011 annual report, Ontario's auditor general suggested that FSCO should reconsider its benchmark of a 12% return on equity (ROE) when reviewing insurers' rate applications. The auditor general noted that the benchmark has not been adjusted downward since it was set in 1996, even though the long-term bond rate has been about 3% for the past few years.
IBC, in response, pointed out that FSCO does not guarantee a 12% ROE when approving rates, and the industry has in fact lost $2.8 billion over the past three years in Ontario auto.
"Raising rates much further will not be politically tenable and there is pressure from both FSCO in their Statement of Priorities and the Ontario Auditor General's annual report to reduce the 12% ROE cap because of the low interest rate environment (an ROE cap that has been largely theoretical in recent years)," Addie wrote.
"Such a decrease in the cap will compel insurers to include a lower profit expectation in their rate applications and thereby cause the gap between premiums and costs to widen."
Addie recommends instead that the government:
• Fix the definition of catastrophic impairments, especially given the Court of Appeal's recent ruling that overturned Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company. "Combining the two injury types will cause more claimants to qualify for the much higher benefits that accrue when the CAT threshold is exceeded.
• Remedy the unwieldly mediation/arbitration system.
• Come down hard on fraud and abuse.
"A trend towards higher claims costs absent significant further cost containment reforms will likely precipitate another crisis; a crisis that both the industry and the government desperately want to avoid."
In its December 2011 annual report, Ontario's auditor general suggested that FSCO should reconsider its benchmark of a 12% return on equity (ROE) when reviewing insurers' rate applications. The auditor general noted that the benchmark has not been adjusted downward since it was set in 1996, even though the long-term bond rate has been about 3% for the past few years.
IBC, in response, pointed out that FSCO does not guarantee a 12% ROE when approving rates, and the industry has in fact lost $2.8 billion over the past three years in Ontario auto.
"Raising rates much further will not be politically tenable and there is pressure from both FSCO in their Statement of Priorities and the Ontario Auditor General's annual report to reduce the 12% ROE cap because of the low interest rate environment (an ROE cap that has been largely theoretical in recent years)," Addie wrote.
"Such a decrease in the cap will compel insurers to include a lower profit expectation in their rate applications and thereby cause the gap between premiums and costs to widen."
Addie recommends instead that the government:
• Fix the definition of catastrophic impairments, especially given the Court of Appeal's recent ruling that overturned Kusnierz v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company. "Combining the two injury types will cause more claimants to qualify for the much higher benefits that accrue when the CAT threshold is exceeded.
• Remedy the unwieldly mediation/arbitration system.
• Come down hard on fraud and abuse.
"A trend towards higher claims costs absent significant further cost containment reforms will likely precipitate another crisis; a crisis that both the industry and the government desperately want to avoid."
First insurer in priority dispute cannot claim an application for benefits is not "completed" if its search for missing information is not diligent: court TEXT SIZE
The Ontario Court of Appeal has found that in a priority dispute between insurers, the first insurer to receive a claim for accident benefits cannot claim it did not receive a "completed application" if it was not diligent in investigating the missing information.
In Ontario (Finance) v. Pilot Insurance Company, an unidentified motorist hit an uninsured cyclist. Since no insurer could be identified, the injured cyclist filed a claim for accident benefits with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Administered by Ontario's Finance Ministry, the Fund provides compensation to people injured in motor vehicle accidents when no insurance exists to respond to their claim.
If, after receiving a claim, the Fund discovers that another insurer may be liable, it can dispute its obligation to pay benefits. But the Fund cannot dispute its obligation to pay benefits unless it gives written notice to the insurer it believes responsible for paying the benefits within 90 days of receipt of a "completed" application for benefits.
In this case, the court had to consider when the Fund received a "completed" application for the purpose of triggering the 90-day notice period.
The injured cyclist did not include a police report of the accident along with his application. This may have indicated the name of the driver and the driver's insurer. Instead, based on a discussion with the cyclist, the Fund sought to obtain the records of a 911 call the cyclist said the unidentified motorist had made to the police.
The police informed the Fund that it could only obtain the 911 call information in one of two ways: a Freedom of Information (FOI) request or a court order.
The cyclist applied to the Fund for benefits on Mar. 7, 2007. The Fund twice tried to obtain the 911 call details through FOI requests. Its second and final request was denied on Jan. 17, 2008.
Subsequently, on Sept. 4, 2008, the Fund obtained an unopposed court order to provide particulars of the 911 call. Four days later, using the 911 records, the Fund determined the identity of the driver and that Pilot Insurance Company was the driver's insurer.
The Fund argued before the court that it had a "completed application" only after it had received the 911 records in September 2008. Only at that point did the Fund have enough information to determine Pilot was the insurer, thus triggering the 90-days notice period.
But the Ontario Appeal Court restored the decision of the original arbitrator, finding that the Fund should have applied for the court order for the 911 records in February 2008 at the latest, just after the second denial of its FOI request.
Had the Fund not delayed in this step until September, the 90-day notice period would have been triggered in February instead, the Appeal Court found. At that point, the Fund would have had enough information to notify Pilot, since at that time the Fund would have received a "functionally adequate" (i.e. completed) application.
"The arbitrator indicated that he was relying on [R. v. Lombard Insurance Company of Canada] for the principle that the first insurer should be treated as receiving a completed application when it does not act diligently in attempting to obtain missing information," the Court of Appeal wrote, in restoring the arbitrator's initial decision.
The full case can be found at:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0033.htm
In Ontario (Finance) v. Pilot Insurance Company, an unidentified motorist hit an uninsured cyclist. Since no insurer could be identified, the injured cyclist filed a claim for accident benefits with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. Administered by Ontario's Finance Ministry, the Fund provides compensation to people injured in motor vehicle accidents when no insurance exists to respond to their claim.
If, after receiving a claim, the Fund discovers that another insurer may be liable, it can dispute its obligation to pay benefits. But the Fund cannot dispute its obligation to pay benefits unless it gives written notice to the insurer it believes responsible for paying the benefits within 90 days of receipt of a "completed" application for benefits.
In this case, the court had to consider when the Fund received a "completed" application for the purpose of triggering the 90-day notice period.
The injured cyclist did not include a police report of the accident along with his application. This may have indicated the name of the driver and the driver's insurer. Instead, based on a discussion with the cyclist, the Fund sought to obtain the records of a 911 call the cyclist said the unidentified motorist had made to the police.
The police informed the Fund that it could only obtain the 911 call information in one of two ways: a Freedom of Information (FOI) request or a court order.
The cyclist applied to the Fund for benefits on Mar. 7, 2007. The Fund twice tried to obtain the 911 call details through FOI requests. Its second and final request was denied on Jan. 17, 2008.
Subsequently, on Sept. 4, 2008, the Fund obtained an unopposed court order to provide particulars of the 911 call. Four days later, using the 911 records, the Fund determined the identity of the driver and that Pilot Insurance Company was the driver's insurer.
The Fund argued before the court that it had a "completed application" only after it had received the 911 records in September 2008. Only at that point did the Fund have enough information to determine Pilot was the insurer, thus triggering the 90-days notice period.
But the Ontario Appeal Court restored the decision of the original arbitrator, finding that the Fund should have applied for the court order for the 911 records in February 2008 at the latest, just after the second denial of its FOI request.
Had the Fund not delayed in this step until September, the 90-day notice period would have been triggered in February instead, the Appeal Court found. At that point, the Fund would have had enough information to notify Pilot, since at that time the Fund would have received a "functionally adequate" (i.e. completed) application.
"The arbitrator indicated that he was relying on [R. v. Lombard Insurance Company of Canada] for the principle that the first insurer should be treated as receiving a completed application when it does not act diligently in attempting to obtain missing information," the Court of Appeal wrote, in restoring the arbitrator's initial decision.
The full case can be found at:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0033.htm
Brokers should consider and educate clients about cyber liability insurance
Brokers can use the insights they gain from researching and insuring their own cyber risks to explain cyber liability coverage to their customers, says Melissa Snyder, president of the Insurance Brokers Association of Waterloo Region (IBAWR).
Snyder discussed cyber liability risk in the IBAWR's February 2012 newsletter.
Snyder notes comprehensive packages and policy extensions are now available to protect brokerages and other companies against losses arising from privacy and security breaches, hacker malfeasance and resultant damage to reputations, business interruption, extra expense and numerous other types of losses.
"We as brokers have a real advantage here to educate our clients," she writes. "Where this coverage was always considered optional, our current environment and the risks associated with E-commerce have it moving in a mandatory direction."
Snyder discussed cyber liability risk in the IBAWR's February 2012 newsletter.
Snyder notes comprehensive packages and policy extensions are now available to protect brokerages and other companies against losses arising from privacy and security breaches, hacker malfeasance and resultant damage to reputations, business interruption, extra expense and numerous other types of losses.
"We as brokers have a real advantage here to educate our clients," she writes. "Where this coverage was always considered optional, our current environment and the risks associated with E-commerce have it moving in a mandatory direction."
Women pay less than men for auto and home insurance: study
Women in Canada pay less for auto and home insurance than men, according to a study by InsureEye Inc.
"We have analyzed insurance premiums of Canadians across the four most populated provinces," an InsureEye Inc. release states. "The outcome was quite clear across both insurance types (home and auto). On average, women in Canada pay 5% less than men for auto insurance and 8% less for home insurance."
Although InsureEye notes several criteria are involved in determining auto premiums, women have lower rates in part because they appear to be safer drivers than men.
"Women not only have fewer accidents than men, but their claims amounts are lower," the company says.
Overall, women in Canada pay an average monthly auto insurance premium of $117. This is 5% lower than a man's average monthly auto insurance premium of $123.
In home insurance lines, women across Canada pay 8% less than men - $71 per month for women, on average, compared to $77 per month for men.
The InsureEye survey does not attribute the disparity in premium pricing between men and women in home insurance lines to any direct cause.
"Difference in home insurance premiums is mostly driven by home value, location, age, and a number of other aspects that are not affected directly by a consumers' gender," InsureEye says. "Nevertheless, the premium difference reaches 8% in favour of women on the national level."
"We have analyzed insurance premiums of Canadians across the four most populated provinces," an InsureEye Inc. release states. "The outcome was quite clear across both insurance types (home and auto). On average, women in Canada pay 5% less than men for auto insurance and 8% less for home insurance."
Although InsureEye notes several criteria are involved in determining auto premiums, women have lower rates in part because they appear to be safer drivers than men.
"Women not only have fewer accidents than men, but their claims amounts are lower," the company says.
Overall, women in Canada pay an average monthly auto insurance premium of $117. This is 5% lower than a man's average monthly auto insurance premium of $123.
In home insurance lines, women across Canada pay 8% less than men - $71 per month for women, on average, compared to $77 per month for men.
The InsureEye survey does not attribute the disparity in premium pricing between men and women in home insurance lines to any direct cause.
"Difference in home insurance premiums is mostly driven by home value, location, age, and a number of other aspects that are not affected directly by a consumers' gender," InsureEye says. "Nevertheless, the premium difference reaches 8% in favour of women on the national level."
Trial judge should have considered effect on costs of settlement offer that didn't conform to Rules of Civil Procedure: Appeal Court
An Ontario trial judge erred by not considering the mitigating factor on costs of a reasonable settlement offer that did not conform to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in a consolidated auto injury tort action that turned on the joint and several liability of co-defendants.
In Lawson v. Vierson, Martha Lawson was involved in two motor vehicle accidents that occurred approximately seven months apart. The first incident in August 1997 involved Maria and John Vierson. The second, in March 1998, involved Scott Robert Hart.
Lawson launched two separate tort actions, one against each defendant. The actions were consolidated into one, as the position of Lawson's doctors was that the first and second accidents contributed to the same damage and injuries she suffered, which included a mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive defects, a major depressive episode and a general anxiety disorder, to name a few.
Prior to trial, Hart offered a settlement of $300,000 to the Lawsons. The Viersons offered a separate, $100,000 offer to settle with the Lawsons. The Lawsons offered to settle the consolidated action for $1.25 million.
At trial, the jury found the Viersons 100% responsible for the first motor vehicle accident and awarded $20,000 for general damages, resulting in a final award of $5,000 once the statutory deductible was applied.
The jury found that Hart was 75% responsible for the second motor vehicle accident and awarded $100,000 in general damages ($85,000 after applying the deductible).
The Lawsons sought $519,378 in costs, which the Viersons argued they should not have to pay, since their settlement offer was better than what Lawson obtained at trial.
However, the trial judge said the Viersons' offer did not conform to Rule 49.11, which essentially says the co-defendants must make a single settlement offer because they were alleged to be jointly and severally responsible for Lawson's injuries.
But even though the Vierson and Hart offers were separate, and thus did not conform to Rule 49.11, the Ontario Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in not considering the Vierson's generous settlement offer within the context of Rule 49.13, which gives a judge discretion to consider the offers when contemplating costs.
"When the Viersens offer is viewed in context rather than in isolation, it is therefore apparent that the offer was a genuine and generous offer to settle and, particularly when taken together with the Hart offer, complied with the spirit of rule 49.10," the Court of Appeal ruled. "In these circumstances, the Viersens offer is the type of offer that, as contemplated by rule 49.13, ought to be given considerable weight in arriving at a costs award."
In Lawson v. Vierson, Martha Lawson was involved in two motor vehicle accidents that occurred approximately seven months apart. The first incident in August 1997 involved Maria and John Vierson. The second, in March 1998, involved Scott Robert Hart.
Lawson launched two separate tort actions, one against each defendant. The actions were consolidated into one, as the position of Lawson's doctors was that the first and second accidents contributed to the same damage and injuries she suffered, which included a mild traumatic brain injury, cognitive defects, a major depressive episode and a general anxiety disorder, to name a few.
Prior to trial, Hart offered a settlement of $300,000 to the Lawsons. The Viersons offered a separate, $100,000 offer to settle with the Lawsons. The Lawsons offered to settle the consolidated action for $1.25 million.
At trial, the jury found the Viersons 100% responsible for the first motor vehicle accident and awarded $20,000 for general damages, resulting in a final award of $5,000 once the statutory deductible was applied.
The jury found that Hart was 75% responsible for the second motor vehicle accident and awarded $100,000 in general damages ($85,000 after applying the deductible).
The Lawsons sought $519,378 in costs, which the Viersons argued they should not have to pay, since their settlement offer was better than what Lawson obtained at trial.
However, the trial judge said the Viersons' offer did not conform to Rule 49.11, which essentially says the co-defendants must make a single settlement offer because they were alleged to be jointly and severally responsible for Lawson's injuries.
But even though the Vierson and Hart offers were separate, and thus did not conform to Rule 49.11, the Ontario Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in not considering the Vierson's generous settlement offer within the context of Rule 49.13, which gives a judge discretion to consider the offers when contemplating costs.
"When the Viersens offer is viewed in context rather than in isolation, it is therefore apparent that the offer was a genuine and generous offer to settle and, particularly when taken together with the Hart offer, complied with the spirit of rule 49.10," the Court of Appeal ruled. "In these circumstances, the Viersens offer is the type of offer that, as contemplated by rule 49.13, ought to be given considerable weight in arriving at a costs award."
Appeal Court upholds judge's decision to strike jury in auto injury trial involving pre-existing medical condition
The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled a trial judge was justified in striking a jury at the outset of an auto accident injury trial involving a pre-existing medical condition (fibromyalgia).
The trial judge ruled that the anticipated complexity of the medical evidence related to the damage assessment warranted the discharge of the jury. The Appeal Court ruled the trial judge did not exercise her discretion in arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
Carmen Placzek was injured in a rear end collision. Prior to the accident, she had suffered from fibromylagia for many years.
Albert Green drove the vehicle that hit Placzek's vehicle. He argued that to the extent Placzek's physical problems interfered with her life after the accident, those problems were attributable in whole or in the main to the serious pre-existing condition and not to the relatively minor accident involving the vehicle driven by the appellant.
The trial judge struck the jury at the outset. The judge ultimately found Green was liable to pay Placzek $919,237. In doing so, she found that despite Placzek's prior physical problems, the injuries she suffered in the accident caused significant problems for her.
Green appealed the damages and the fact that the jury was struck.
The Appeal Court found that even though some of the reasons for which the trial judge struck the jury were irrelevant to the decision, the trial judge mainly decided the matter on the basis of the anticipated complexity of the medical evidence.
The trial judge ruled that the anticipated complexity of the medical evidence related to the damage assessment warranted the discharge of the jury. The Appeal Court ruled the trial judge did not exercise her discretion in arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.
Carmen Placzek was injured in a rear end collision. Prior to the accident, she had suffered from fibromylagia for many years.
Albert Green drove the vehicle that hit Placzek's vehicle. He argued that to the extent Placzek's physical problems interfered with her life after the accident, those problems were attributable in whole or in the main to the serious pre-existing condition and not to the relatively minor accident involving the vehicle driven by the appellant.
The trial judge struck the jury at the outset. The judge ultimately found Green was liable to pay Placzek $919,237. In doing so, she found that despite Placzek's prior physical problems, the injuries she suffered in the accident caused significant problems for her.
Green appealed the damages and the fact that the jury was struck.
The Appeal Court found that even though some of the reasons for which the trial judge struck the jury were irrelevant to the decision, the trial judge mainly decided the matter on the basis of the anticipated complexity of the medical evidence.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Aviva Canada launches corporate social media strategy
Aviva Canada is launching a corporate social media strategy that includes a presence on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and a blog.
The insurer's Aviva Community Fund garnered 36,000 Facebook ‘likes' and 3,600 Twitter followers since 2009, when the campaign was launched.
Aviva Canada will now also use social media to share information, including tips for property protection, safety advice, community investment, catastrophe/emergency contact info, career postings, product updates and customer interaction stories, a company release says.
"Social media is an increasingly important way for consumers to get information about things that matter to them personally," said Debra Ambrose, senior vice president of marketing and sales with Aviva Canada.
"We want to lead by example and support our broker partners by providing helpful and timely information they can also share with their customers."
The insurer's Aviva Community Fund garnered 36,000 Facebook ‘likes' and 3,600 Twitter followers since 2009, when the campaign was launched.
Aviva Canada will now also use social media to share information, including tips for property protection, safety advice, community investment, catastrophe/emergency contact info, career postings, product updates and customer interaction stories, a company release says.
"Social media is an increasingly important way for consumers to get information about things that matter to them personally," said Debra Ambrose, senior vice president of marketing and sales with Aviva Canada.
"We want to lead by example and support our broker partners by providing helpful and timely information they can also share with their customers."
Insurance companies turning down increasing number of requests for assessment and treatment of auto injuries: health care providers
nsurance companies in Ontario are now turning down an increasing percentage of requests for the assessment and treatment of serious (non-minor) injuries sustained by motor vehicle accident victims, according to a survey of Ontario rehabilitation providers.
The Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers commissioned the survey, which was promoted in a press release on Jan. 19 although as of press time it was not known when the survey was conducted. The alliance represents approximately 80 companies and about 3,500 health care providers including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, chiropractors, psychologists, rehabilitation therapists, social workers, personal support workers and case managers.
The survey of 1,143 rehabilitation providers found that 42% of requests for treatment are now being rejected - up from only 11% prior to the government's changes to the insurance system in September 2010.
"That's a 282% jump," the alliance said in a press release announcing the survey results.
According to the Alliance, the survey results further demonstrate that insurers are attempting to slot as many claimants into the ‘minor injury' classification as possible.
"Insurers are now automatically classifying many cases as ‘minor injury,' even though the health care providers have identified the injuries as serious," the group says in its analysis of the results. "Survey respondents say more than half of their patients who have been slotted into the ‘minor injury' category will run out of benefits before they recover."
Insurers say they are "appalled" the alliance is pointing he finger of blame at them. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) said the results of the Alliance's survey are better understood in the context of the province's efforts to reduce the number of fraudulent auto insurance claims.
"As Ontario's auditor general pointed out in his annual report at the end of 2011, there has been an alarming 150% increase in claims costs when the number of injury claims only increased 30% in the same time period (2005-2010)," said IBC's vice president for Ontario Ralph Palumbo. "Is it reasonable that, as stated in the report, accidents are down while claims have increased? It just doesn't add up.
"The average injury claim in Ontario is about $56,000 - five times more than the average claims in other provinces. Too many people are using the auto insurance system as a profit-making opportunity. There is a sophisticated network of service providers who use the auto insurance system for their own self-interest."
In its statement, the Alliance said it had tried to obtain information about insurers' denial rates from Health Claims for Auto Insurance (HCAI), which is an electronic system for transmitting auto insurance claim forms between insurers and health care facilities in Ontario. Unable to acquire the data from HCAI, the alliance said it elected to survey its members instead.
The Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers commissioned the survey, which was promoted in a press release on Jan. 19 although as of press time it was not known when the survey was conducted. The alliance represents approximately 80 companies and about 3,500 health care providers including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, chiropractors, psychologists, rehabilitation therapists, social workers, personal support workers and case managers.
The survey of 1,143 rehabilitation providers found that 42% of requests for treatment are now being rejected - up from only 11% prior to the government's changes to the insurance system in September 2010.
"That's a 282% jump," the alliance said in a press release announcing the survey results.
According to the Alliance, the survey results further demonstrate that insurers are attempting to slot as many claimants into the ‘minor injury' classification as possible.
"Insurers are now automatically classifying many cases as ‘minor injury,' even though the health care providers have identified the injuries as serious," the group says in its analysis of the results. "Survey respondents say more than half of their patients who have been slotted into the ‘minor injury' category will run out of benefits before they recover."
Insurers say they are "appalled" the alliance is pointing he finger of blame at them. The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) said the results of the Alliance's survey are better understood in the context of the province's efforts to reduce the number of fraudulent auto insurance claims.
"As Ontario's auditor general pointed out in his annual report at the end of 2011, there has been an alarming 150% increase in claims costs when the number of injury claims only increased 30% in the same time period (2005-2010)," said IBC's vice president for Ontario Ralph Palumbo. "Is it reasonable that, as stated in the report, accidents are down while claims have increased? It just doesn't add up.
"The average injury claim in Ontario is about $56,000 - five times more than the average claims in other provinces. Too many people are using the auto insurance system as a profit-making opportunity. There is a sophisticated network of service providers who use the auto insurance system for their own self-interest."
In its statement, the Alliance said it had tried to obtain information about insurers' denial rates from Health Claims for Auto Insurance (HCAI), which is an electronic system for transmitting auto insurance claim forms between insurers and health care facilities in Ontario. Unable to acquire the data from HCAI, the alliance said it elected to survey its members instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)