Canadian Underwriter
News

Insurance Brokers Association of Nova Scotia says province’s auto injury cap is “warranted,” but needs to be indexed


March 29, 2010   by Canadian Underwriter


Print this page Share

The Insurance Brokers Association of Nova Scotia (IBANS) says limitations placed on pain and suffering awards in the province have “resulted in a satisfied consumer, a competitive marketplace and rate stability that has been continuous since 2003.”
The association thus responded to a government review of the cap, promised during the province’s 2009 election campaign. The government issued a consultation paper in January 2010 that asks several questions, including: “Should there be limitations placed on pain and suffering awards?”
IBANS says the existing limitations are “warranted.” The association responded to the province’s discussion paper before the consultation period ended in mid-February 2010.
“IBANS has polled our members to determine what type of feedback has been received from our clients with respect to the cap,” the IBANS paper says. “With over half of our members responding, 96% of responses indicated there has been no negative feedback from their customers in relation to minor injury cap.
“It is clear to IBANS that the minor injury cap has not been an issue for the vast majority of consumers, even consumers who have had the misfortune to be involved in an automobile collision.”
If the cap is to be changed in any way, the association goes on to say, “it would be reasonable to suggest that some form of indexing clause be introduced.”
IBANS notes the current cap is not indexed to inflation.
“IBANS is not qualified to determine what form this [indexing] should take, or how much the indexing should be, but clearly $2,500 in 2010 is not the same as $2,500 in 2003,” IBANS says in its submission to the government.
In an email to Canadian Underwriter, IBANS president Ken Myers says “we remain optimistic that changes related to the cap will reflect some adjustments in definitions and possibly in the dollar amount of the cap itself, but will not result in a replacement of the cap with a deductible, for example.”


Print this page Share

Have your say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*