Canadian Underwriter

Ontario government promises auto rate review

November 18, 2018   by Greg Meckbach

Print this page Share

The Ontario government announced Thursday it plans to “review how auto insurance rates are regulated” and confirmed the government will still run the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

A review of rate regulation will be done “jointly with the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario,” the government said in its 2018 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review.

Rates are regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Before changing rates, a carrier must first submit its proposed rate changes – along with supporting actuarial data – to FSCO for approval.

The current system is getting some pushback from the industry. For example, Heartland Farm Mutual CEO Louis Durocher told Canadian Underwriter earlier that carriers should not have to wait for FSCO’s approval before changing their rates.

The Economic Outlook does not go so far as to call for a file-and-use system for auto insurance rates.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority – established in 2017 – will at some point take over auto insurance regulation from FSCO.  In its budget document for 2018-19 – released this past March – the government said it is “committed” to having FSRA up and running by April, 2019. At the time the Liberal party formed the government. The Liberals were replaced by the Progressive Conservatives in the election this past June.

The creation of FSRA was one of 37 recommendations made in the Review of the Mandates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), Financial Services Tribunal (FST) and the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario (DICO), a report released in 2015 by a panel of three. That panel included George Cooke, former CEO of The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.

In the report, the panel recommended that the MVACF be transferred to the Facility Association because debt collection and claims administration are not core responsibilities of a financial regulator.

In its economic outlook released Thursday, the government suggested it intends to table legislation moving the MVACF from FSCO to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services – not to industry, as recommended by the 2015 panel.

MVACF is intended to provide compensation for motor vehicle accident victims who either have no recourse to auto insurance or who are involved in accidents with uninsured or unidentified drivers.

Two years ago, the province took responsibility for arbitrating accident benefits disputes away from FSCO. Now claimants can take disputes to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for arbitration.

With the new economic statement, the Ontario government “has established policy objectives to modernize insurance, to improve affordability, to reduce the regulatory burden, and to foster innovation,” Aviva Canada president and CEO Colm Holmes stated in a release Thursday. “Aviva fully supports all these principles.”

Also reacting to the economic statement is the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

The government said that “recent innovations in the insurance sector require an equally innovative response from regulators,” IBC said.

The Ontario government said Thursday it “is committed to creating a regulatory framework that allows for a more modern auto insurance sector,” including electronic proof of auto insurance and “innovative insurance products, such as usage-based insurance technology.”

UBI refers to telematics technology that monitors vehicle behaviour – such as speed, hard braking, sudden acceleration, distance driven and the time of day the vehicle is being driven. FSCO allows carriers to use UBI to give discounts for low-risk driving behaviour but not to add surcharges for risky driving behaviour.

In addition to regulating auto insurance, FSRA will also regulate life and health insurance, mortgage brokers, pension plan administrators, credit unions and caisses populaires.

Print this page Share

3 Comments » for Ontario government promises auto rate review
  1. Jason Morris says:

    The government is only looking at one side of the problem. There are many sides not just the insurance company side. This seems to be the only side the government is looking at. Insurance company’s lie about profitability of the system and claim that they are loosing money. If you accept what they say would logic only dictate that they want out of the auto insurance business. But in reality it you ask them to give you an honest answer they would be no way. Why? They can still make money and satisfy their shareholders.

    The reason they want rates to increase is obvious, but what are they going to give back to the policyholders in exchange for this increase. Ontario has the highest insurance rate in North America but have the least amounts of benefits.

    For the most catastrophic injured people they only have $1,000,000 available to cover there costs for treatment, recovery and attendant care. Not only will this not cover the costs it is nearly impossible for the injured person and their family’s to access this money. This is how screwed up this system is, a family member cannot be conpensenated for helping out their injured loved one without showing an economic loss. Not only does the family suffer from the injury they are told access will be very limited.

    There is very little checks and balances with what the insurance company does on a daily basis. If they feel a benefit is questionable, they have the right to obtain an assessment of their choosing to determine if it is reasonable. Would you not agree that if there is a dispute between to sides as to whether treatment is reasonable an independent third party assessment would be appropiate? However the system that YOU THE GOVERNMENT put into place allows without recourse the insurer to choose the facility, choose the Doctor, and decide what if any treatment/benefits are available to an injured person. If denied which is most of the time, the only recourse is to challenge it through the LAT process. This takes months and possibly years before a decision can be made. In the meantime the person could get worse.

    To add insult to injury, there is no provision for payment of obtaining their own reports to assist in their fight to get benefits. The insurance company holds all the money to set up and demand assessments for which they have the money to pay for. The injured person and their family do not have the funds to pay for such reports just to level to playing field. This is the system the government established as a fair way to challenge the benefits.

    Furthermore the penalties on insurance company’s for refusing to pay for benefits is insulting as it is more profitable for them to withhold payment than it is to pay it out.

    This only encourages the insurance company to withhold the benefits for as long as possible to discourage legitimate injured people from getting the proper treatment they need to get back to their pre-accident place.

    I could say a lot more but i think you get the idea of some of the problems with the system.

  2. AAM says:

    Better apply model similar to Quebec.

Have your say:

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