In the decision, there is a lot of "interesting" (and I use that term loosely) statistics and figures on how the insurance industry cycles through hard and soft markets. Some of the experts agreed that Alberta was coming out of one of the hardest markets on record but that things were starting to look up before the insurance reforms were introduced. It was kind of implied that things would have gotten better if the government left the market alone. At the same time, record profits were being recorded by insurers (which is what prompted the illusory premium freeze).
It would also seem that the majority of savings were enjoyed by young drivers, old drivers and those who were coming back into the market after a period of being uninsured (in other words, high-risk drivers). In order to give them a break on their insurance costs, a cap was placed on the recovery of damages for pain and suffering for those claiming soft tissue injuries. Why was that group chosen to bear the burden of insurance reform? Because damages for soft tissue injury made up a large proportion of settlements, insurance payouts and treatment costs. And because there is a perception, and you can see it throughout this thread, that people who suffer a soft tissue injury are maligners exaggerating their injuries or otherwise acting fraudulently. The Court (and it wasn't the Supreme Court despite what a lot of papers have said) agreed that this bias and prejudice exists and found it was not justifiable to tread on their Charter rights to keep automobile insurance affordable in Alberta.
There are a variety of areas that the Crown could find grounds for appeal. Even when arguments were heard at the conclusion of the trial, the Crown warned that it would appeal a decision that didn't go in its favor.
|