BREAKING NEWS! QB Strikes Down Cap On Minor Injuries! - Page 8 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Slava · 06-03-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

IIRC the 40% increase would only be on the liability portion of your insurance; also know as PLPD. Still a huge chunk, but not 40% of your entire bill.

Listening to QR77 yesterday they brought up the fact that the insurance companies asked for 37% last year and got 5%. Maybe they want 8% this year so they are asking for 40%.

Well the reason that they wanted 37% last year was because of the breaking news in this thread, IIRC?

BlackArcher101 · 06-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Must be nice in times of recession to protect your bottom line and increase the cost of yet another service that the public uses.

Wages dropping, costs going up. YAY!

troutman · 06-11-2009, 04:09 PM

ACTLA expects decision tomorrow:

WE understand the Court of Appeal will be posting the decision tomorrow Friday at 1005 on the Court Website

troutman · 06-12-2009, 08:41 AM

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Al...791/story.html

Alberta motorists could see their automobile insurance premiums soar as much as 40 per cent, pending a landmark ruling today from the provincial Court of Appeal that will determine whether a $4,000 cap on payouts for soft tissue injuries is unconstitutional.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says motorists might only see a modest hike in their premiums if the cap is restored, but the group has warned that no ceiling on payouts could see rates jump around 40 per cent just to keep the system in balance.

Alberta Finance spokesman Bart Johnson said Thursday the government is looking forward to seeing the decision, but admits "it wouldn't be surprising" if it is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a panel of justices would decide whether the court hears the case.

Insurance Bureau of Canada spokesman James Geuzebroek said a decision in the industry's favour would be "a positive one for the drivers of the province."

onetwo_threefour · 06-12-2009, 09:51 AM

I call for a Royal Commission into auto insurance. If insurers are lying to the regulators, they need to be punished by a premium rollback and freeze for awhile. If it's the other side, then the insurance company gets their proposed hike. I think it's abundantly clear that our regulatory system is fundamentally broken if there is this much uncertainty about what's really going on.

troutman · 06-12-2009, 09:55 AM

10 minutes?

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/Court...8/Default.aspx

Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215 (Reserved Judgment)

Slava · 06-12-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

I call for a Royal Commission into auto insurance. If insurers are lying to the regulators, they need to be punished by a premium rollback and freeze for awhile. If it's the other side, then the insurance company gets their proposed hike. I think it's abundantly clear that our regulatory system is fundamentally broken if there is this much uncertainty about what's really going on.

I don't disagree with this at all. If you look at the financial ratios for these companies you can see in a few seconds that they are making money. They did before the cap was in place and will continue to do so if the cap is removed.

troutman · 06-12-2009, 10:25 AM

ACTLA is reporting:

The cap decision went against the Plaintiffs on a unaminous basis.

Slava · 06-12-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

ACTLA is reporting:

The cap decision went against the Plaintiffs on a unaminous basis.

So the cap is upheld?

troutman · 06-12-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

So the cap is upheld?

Stunningly, yes.

Ottawa, here we come.

Slava · 06-12-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Stunningly, yes.

Ottawa, here we come.

What in the world could that be based on?

I guess by then the financial markets will have recovered and the justification on them not making money will be harder to prove though.

troutman · 06-12-2009, 10:42 AM

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber...2/9778506.html

Alberta’s law limiting damages in soft-tissue injury cases to $4,000 is not unconstitutional, the province’s top court ruled today, restoring the controversial legislation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling which said the law violated individual equality rights by targeting a select group of insurance claimants.

Their lawyer, Fred Kozak, said he was disappointed with the ruling, but hopes his clients will appeal it to the Supreme Court.

“I hope that my clients will wish to continue the fight despite the economic disparity ... between them and the government and the largest insurance companies in Canada,” Kozak said.

troutman · 06-12-2009, 11:18 AM

Here it is:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/pdf/M...ngDecision.pdf

FlamesKickAss · 06-12-2009, 11:20 AM

why do people need more than $4000?

troutman · 06-12-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

why do people need more than $4000?

Ask me that question if you ever suffer whiplash.

Common law has established that proper compensation in such cases is much more.

Just wait until an MLA discovers he is only entitled to $4000 for his "minor injury".

Bobblehead · 06-12-2009, 11:35 AM

And the first person who refers to the McDonalds/Hot Coffee lawsuit as an excuse for a cap deserves to be smacked until they get whiplash.

I don't think people should profit from these type of lawsuits, but I also think any arbitrary cap can do much more harm than good for everyone except insurance companies.

macker · 06-12-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The insurance companies are making billions, I wouldn't see rates going way up as it should make money, any rates should only go up for crapy drivers.

Not the P&C insurers in Canada.....Take for example the largest P&C insurer in Canada's latest earnings.....they lost 36.3 million....http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../13/c2325.html
The perception is that they are making billions but the reality is that they are losing millions....

Bobblehead · 06-12-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macker

Not the P&C insurers in Canada.....Take for example the largest P&C insurer in Canada's latest earnings.....they lost 36.3 million....http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../13/c2325.html
The perception is that they are making billions but the reality is that they are losing millions....

Well, true, but they aren't losing the money because of insurance settlements.

Quote:

The decline in net income was driven by an $82.9 million pre-tax non-recurring investment loss resulting from the implementation of a hedging program aimed at reducing market risk and maintaining the company's financial strength and flexibility.

I'm not sure a rate increase to me should be covering their stock market losses.

macker · 06-12-2009, 12:11 PM

[quote=Bobblehead;1884574]Well, true, but they aren't losing the money because of insurance settlements.

I'm not sure a rate increase to me should be covering their stock market losses.[/quote]

Who is going to cover it then? Let me know as unfunded pension liability would also like to know....

Bobblehead · 06-12-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Well, true, but they aren't losing the money because of insurance settlements.

I'm not sure a rate increase to me should be covering their stock market losses.

Who is going to cover it then? Let me know as unfunded pension liability would also like to know....

Well isn't it a conflict of interest if they are taking the money I am paying for insurance then gambling that on the stock market? I would think that there would need to be some sort of distinction or separation.

Otherwise that is a heck of a gig - make it a law that people must buy your product, then use that money to gamble on the stock market. Talk the government into putting a cap on the amount you may ever need to pay out on the premiums, and start swimming in the suckers money a la Scrooge McDuck.