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.
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)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.
But silver lining for legal profession as clients need more advice.
The latest round of automobile insurance reforms has introduced big cuts to medical, rehabilitation and attendant-care limits; the removal of housekeeping and caregiver
expenses; and the capping of assessment fees and treatment costs for minor injuries. But with only a promise to keep premium increases in check, personal injury lawyers say an unfair playing field is tilting even further away from the innocent and injured.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has hit an insurer with a $40,000 penalty for refusing to mediate a dispute it considered to be under the statutory threshold for personal injury damages, a move that reinforces the notion that even private mediation is in fact mandatory.
The dispute in Keam v. Caddey arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which Glen Keam suffered personal injuries. The defendant’s insurer defended the action.
In the meantime, Keam’s representatives sent two formal requests for private mediation that referred to cost consequences for refusal. The first request was completely ignored.
Recent changes to the Insurance Act and the Regulations thereunder are gutting benefits in Ontario effective September, 2010. These dramatic changes will reduce medical, rehabilitation, and income replacement benefits to levels not seen in over 20 years taking inflation into account. Many benefits are being eliminated completely.
As personal injury lawyers we see this affecting our clients immeasurably.
While owners of motor vehicles will be permitted the option of purchasing some extended benefits, pedestrians and other innocent accidents victims who do not have insurance will see their entitlement to necessary benefits slashed or eliminated.
