DAILY NEWS Jan 23, 2013 10:39 AM - 5 comments

Ontario auto reforms produced a switch from accident benefits to tort

TEXT SIZE bigger text smaller text
By: Angela Stelmakowich, Editor
2013-01-23

The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) remains Ontario’s trouble spot for auto despite the fact that the September 2010 reforms are working well on the accident benefits side, Brigid Murphy, president and CEO of The Dominion, said during a speech on Tuesday. 

Briefcase

Ontario has, in essence, plugged the dike on the accident benefits side, Murphy told attendees of the Insurance Brokers of Toronto Region luncheon. “The changes in the regulations have worked incredibly well on the accident benefits side, better than expected. That’s the good news. The bad news is people who were living off accident benefits coverage have moved over to the tort side.”

Still, Murphy emphasized that this is not an Ontario-wide problem. “Outside of the GTA, Ontario auto is doing just fine,” she suggested.

“There is certainly a degree, and possibly a large degree, of frivolous-type claims,” Murphy commented. “A lot of companies are paying these nuisance claims to get rid of them,” but this serves to fund their ongoing continuation.

“We’ve gone from a system where who you insure was the key factor, because the biggest payout was on the accident benefits side. We’re now in a system where who you hit is the big factor,” Murphy said.

She praised the approach taken by the Ontario Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force, which released its recommendations last November. “The really good thing about this fraud task force is that it looked at the system as a whole,” Murphy noted, “which is really what you have to do.”

Brigid

Just this week, the Ontario government announced it was moving forward with several proposed regulatory amendments to combat auto fraud in the province. The draft changes – which, if given the green light, will take effect June 1 – include requiring insurers to provide claimants all reasons for denying a claim; giving claimants the right to receive a bi-monthly, detailed statement of benefits paid out on their behalf; increasing the role of claimants in fraud prevention (e.g., require them to confirm attendance at health clinics); and making providers subject to sanctions for overcharging insurers for goods and services and banning them from asking consumers to sign blank claim forms.

“There are imbalances in the system that the drivers of Ontario should be really annoyed about because it’s taking money out of their pockets,” Murphy said. “It’s not money well-spent.”



Horizontal ruler

Reader Comments

Most recent firstOldest first

V.Sharma

Bunch of idiots running the insurance industry. They don't know what they're doing and only care about profits. I'm sure they'll come out soon enough and blame the consumers using the fraud argument again. The real enemy lies within folks.

Posted January 30, 2013 09:18 AM


Mike

You get what you deserve, insurers! Please, when you plan your next strategy to combat this, try to think it through this time! And don't upset the public if you can help it.

Posted January 24, 2013 08:42 PM


josie

Having been on the claims side for an insurer and watched the steady drain of dollars to frivolous claims, it still amazes me that a company would pay $500,000- $1m per year for nuisance issues. That kind of money buys a lot of legal time which could be spent just taking ONE frivolous claim to trial.
Not only would this send a message to plaintiff's counsel and to claimants that the industry is not going to put up with paying nuisance claims, but claimants would be put in the position of proving their loss and losing most of their settlement to legal fees. We generally see the same firms over and over on the opposing side and certainly it's time to have them determine whether it's worth going to court for. How many of the plaintiff's counsel have had any trial experience? Or, do they just count on having insurers capitulate and throw in something for nuisance?

It's time to fight back. The more frivolous claims paid to get rid of them, the more nuisance claims you'll see.

Posted January 24, 2013 11:21 AM


angela

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize when the AB reforms were implemented, the spillover would be taken up by the tort side and rightfully so.

Posted January 24, 2013 10:46 AM


harry

If a claimant cannot collect medical expenses in excess of the $50,000 cap, caregiver, housekeeping or income loss in excess of the $400 a week in income replacement benefits then the claimant is entitled to make a claim via tort. These items would be considered special damages The only way that the claimant would be entitled to receive payment is if the claims are legitimate and liability is favourable to the claimant.
Making a claim for these items is legal and proper and is not fraud.
Perhaps the solution is a return to tort and the elimination of the accident benefits system.
If the insurance companies are paying to settle frivolous claims then they are the problem, Only meritorious claims should be paid, The insurance industry is only creating problems for itself by not resisting claims that should not be paid,

Posted January 24, 2013 05:54 AM


FirstPrevNextLast
Horizontal Ruler

Post A Comment

Disclaimer
Note: By submitting your comments you acknowledge that Canadian Underwriter has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published and those that are published will not be edited. However, all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated.

Your Name (this will appear with your post) *

Email Address (will not be published) *

Comments *



* mandatory fields