As reported by the CBC at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/12/30/car-insurance-therapy.html
Hamilton speech therapist says car insurance companies are increasingly rejecting her recommended treatments for people who’ve been hurt in accidents.
Deidre Sperry helps her clients recover from brain injuries. Those who have been hurt in car accidents represent 95 per cent of her client base.
Car insurance companies rejected five of Sperry’s recommended treatment plans this year. She said that is more rejections than in her previous 11 years of practice combined.
Posted In: Accident victim’s rights to expansive first party or “no-fault” benefits in catastrophic cases has been boosted by the recent decision in Kusnierz v. The Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONSC 5749 (CanLII). The decision overturns the trial decision.
At trial the judge determined that psychological impairments could not be considered in conjunction with physcal impairments to determine catastrophic impairment. The Court of Appeal has ruled that both areas of injury can be considered and combined to determine whole body impairments. This is consitent with the findings in the case of Desbiens where the trial judge followed an approach now confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
From the Law Times at http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Focus-On/Litigation-looms-over-minor-injury-cases
Many insurance industry professionals are predicting a deluge of litigation over the many uncertainties associated with the application of the minor injury guidelines.
The lack of consensus over which cases legitimately fall within the criteria cries out for judicial commentary that appears to be years away, which means that even matters that settle are at risk of being reopened when that guidance finally comes.
John Norton of McCall Dawson Osterberg Handler LLP in London, Ont., concludes that the definition of minor injury is going to cause a big debate with significant consequences.
In an action against the Hamilton Police in negligence for failing to arrest Hamilton’s “Most Wanted Criminal” Corey Rogers, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a motion by the police which, if successful, would have stopped the lawsuit. By virtue of the Ruling the plaintiffs are permitted to proceed. The case is under appeal. The plaintiffs are represented by Charles Flaherty and Tara Sciara of Flaherty Sloan Hatfield.
See: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2011/2011onsc5312/2011onsc5312.html
For more information on the details of the crime see: http://www.oacas.org/news/09/april/09roger.pdf
The recent Auditor General Report in highly critical of the Ontario Government’s regulation of the cost of insurance in Ontario.
As quoted by the CBC at http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/12/05/auditor-general-ontario-spending.html?cmp=rss :
The number of people killed or injured in auto accidents in Ontario fell 25 per cent in a decade, but the government still guarantees insurers a “reasonable rate of return” of 12 per cent. That figure was last adjusted in 1996, when the long-term bond rate it was based on was 10 per cent.
Posted At: 4:00pm 12/08/11
Comments Off (0)An insurer is required to defend a claim where the facts alleged in the pleadings, if proven to be true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claim. It is irrelevant whether the allegations in the pleadings can be proven in evidence. What is required is the mere possibility that a claim falls within the insurance policy. Where it is clear that the claim falls outside the policy, either because it does not come within the initial grant of coverage or is excluded by an exclusion clause, there will be no duty to defend. In examining the pleadings to determine whether the claims fall within the scope of coverage, what is determinative is the true nature or substance of the claim, not the labels selected by the plaintiff.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a claim for damages of mental distress caused by the failure of Echelon Insurance to properly adjust a claim arising from a motor vehicle collision.
“People purchase motor vehicle liability policies to protect themselves from financial and emotional stress and insecurity. An object of such contracts is to secure a psychological benefit that brought the prospect of mental distress upon breach within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made. As an insured person entitled to call on the policy, Ms. McQueen was entitled to that peace of mind and to damages when she suffered mental distress on breach.
By Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/18/put-auto-insurers-under-microscope
Being injured in a car accident isn’t something to which anyone looks forward.
Aside from the pain and suffering from the injuries, there’s the potential loss of earnings.
But, no worries, we have no-fault income replacement benefits in Ontario.
And, of course, an insurance company would never act in anything other than good faith in administering those benefits. Or would they?
Let’s look at the case of Everliston Cowans, who was injured in April 2007.
In any lawsuit in Ontario, be it criminal, civil, family or personal injury/insurance, the Rules of Court mandate that parties exchange relevant documentation that they have, or information pertaining to documentation or other relevant information that they know to exist, be it in their possession or not.
Most often, the request for documentary information originates with a third party.
The purpose of timely exchange of information is to facilitate a resolution of the dispute between the parties.
The Rules of Court are designed to facilitate settlement and avoid court.
