Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, they are trying to save as much money as possible. If that offer is accepted by someone who doesn't feel like investigating the options, that adjuster excelled at their job. Insurers lowball all the time. And they always hire outside counsel if the plaintiff is represented.

re bolded:

Are you saying that as soon as someone retains a lawyer the insurance company automatically retains a lawyer?

Their inhouse counsel is not for litigation. At all.

Hmmmm, my experience is different. If you are correct when did this change?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, they are trying to save as much money as possible. If that offer is accepted by someone who doesn't feel like investigating the options, that adjuster excelled at their job. Insurers lowball all the time. And they always hire outside counsel if the plaintiff is represented. Their inhouse counsel is not for litigation. At all.

Now i'm looking at this as if its a minor injury so a $9000 offer is on par. If I were an adjuster and got a fake letter pretending to be retained as was stated in Cappy alluded to

"I sent the insurance company a letter saying i was retained and reviewing the matter." Now again i'm assuming he isn't a lawyer so this is coming in an email from a random person? Or maybe he is a lawyer so he is misrepresenting himself as he wasn't actually retained . . .

Ok now that we can look past the obvious BS an adjuster offered $9000 on a claim and you get an actual lawyer, I assume if they are discussing settlement already then the injuries are resolved so what is the lawyer going to do? That is going up to $20k-$30k tops if barely at all, so now you have inflated a claim by 300% and want to complain about the cost of insurance.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

re bolded:

Are you saying that as soon as someone retains a lawyer the insurance company automatically retains a lawyer?



Hmmmm, my experience is different. If you are correct when did this change?

As soon as a lawyer files a statement of claim the insurance company retains yes, and they always file a statement of claim because they need to get their fees up (SOC is only needed if a claim is going to exceed the 2 year limitation)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

As soon as a lawyer files a statement of claim the insurance company retains yes, and they always file a statement of claim because they need to get their fees up (SOC is only needed if a claim is going to exceed the 2 year limitation)

A statement of claim is filed to suspend limitation. The lawyer can then sit on that Statement of Claim for another year prior to serving it (unless the rules of court have changed, which is possible).

My experience is that lawyers aren't always retained as soon as a Statement of Claim is filed or even serviced for that matter.

If a Statement of Defense is waived there is no need to retain a lawyer.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

A statement of claim is filed to suspend limitation. The lawyer can then sit on that Statement of Claim for another year prior to serving it (unless the rules of court have changed, which is possible).

My experience is that lawyers aren't always retained as soon as a Statement of Claim is filed or even serviced for that matter.

If a Statement of Defense is waived there is no need to retain a lawyer.

Regarding the serving i'm not sure, I understood that once filed the listed parties would get a copy but yeah the lawyer is for the SOD, i'm not confident on my knowledge of this portion.

Edit: corrected below

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...388582?cmp=rss


It's a good thing they took the time to do a long exhaustive search to find the best person for the job, with decades of experience managing large pension funds.


No surprise at this point, just more appointments of old dog Conservatives looking to take more control of everything because they obviously know best, because reasons.

Im sure all the conflicts of interest the last ethics comissioner found with Harper the last time they tried something with him have totally been resolved... right?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Im sure all the conflicts of interest the last ethics comissioner found with Harper the last time they tried something with him have totally been resolved... right?

You could probably FOIP it to find out, but, oh wait, no they've made all those discussions un-foipable.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Regarding the serving i'm not sure, I understood that once filed the listed parties would get a copy but yeah the lawyer is for the SOD, i'm not confident on my knowledge of this portion.

Edit: yeah once filed its delivered but the insurance companies immediately ask for a waiver of defence.

The plaintiff files the Statement of Claim with the court, once done they have 1 year in which to serve the Statement of Claim. So an insurance company could technically go 3 years without know there was even a claim.

Plaintiff counsel can waive the need for a Statement of Defense and continue to negotiate with the insurance company.

Frankly this happens more often than people think.

Re bold, you are a bit all over the place. It is the Plaintiff that "asks" for a defense. And the filed Statement of Claims isn't delivered to the insurance company. The Statement of Claims doesn't even name the insurance company it names the policy holder.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...388582?cmp=rss


It's a good thing they took the time to do a long exhaustive search to find the best person for the job, with decades of experience managing large pension funds.


No surprise at this point, just more appointments of old dog Conservatives looking to take more control of everything because they obviously know best, because reasons.

All for optics prior to a big APP push. Remember who first suggested an APP???

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Judges are federally appointed, paid a set salary no matter what laws are in place, and personal injury cases are a pretty small part of their workload given that most cases never see a trial. There won't be fewer judges.

I was under the impression that our court system was overloaded, meaning that there is a need to hire more judges, and that any reduction of workload would diminish the need to do so, or at least move other cases up towards quicker resolution. Is that not the case? Do we have judges sitting on their butts, being paid salary, just waiting for the next case to come in?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The top 20%, on average, makes 3.4 Million dollars.

This is very, very far from being accurate. The average income of the top 1% in Canada is only like $500k. The top 20% would have a threshhold income of like $100k or maybe even less.

https://www.springfinancial.ca/blog/...da-by-province

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

A statement of claim is filed to suspend limitation. The lawyer can then sit on that Statement of Claim for another year prior to serving it (unless the rules of court have changed, which is possible)

They have not changed. Although you do need to be careful with this stuff as you rarely have exact certainty about when the limitation period started to run. EDIT: I didn't read the whole thread, if this is about an insured loss you sometimes have more certainty.

[puffnstuff]

Byelection called for Lethbrdge West. December 18th

https://www.elections.ab.ca/writ-has...t-by-election/

[Fuzz]

Ah, the ever popular pre-Christmas by-election. Should get turnouts of upwards of 15%. I'm sure this wasn't on purpose though. It was the only reasonable date to do it.


I swear this government has made me at least 647% more cynical.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I don't doubt you, but that's one hell of a letter....

It happens all the time. Insurance companies want to close quick, and usually call when the claim is new. PI lawyers, when they are retained, usually wait as long as possible to see if/when the injuries subside.

Sometimes that takes a decade.

It's not about whats in the letter, it's about what an insurance company can get away with. As soon as a lawyer is involved, they know that they likely won't get a quick, cheaper settlement. Most people don't know the value of an injury claim and the insurance company is counting on that.

Originally Posted by Raekwon

I do doubt it and would put that in the things that didn't happen category and then under F for fraud

Ok.... sure. I mean, i cant show you the receipts because that is privileged. I can tell you we ultimately settled for 6 figures.

I don't practice PI day-to-day but i work with PI lawyers, and the above anecdote is not out of the ordinary. I typically practice general litigation and employment, and it's not out of the ordinary to see jumps when counsel are involved.

what is fraudulent about what i said?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Maybe, I don't know Cappy, but I'd suggest that anyone that jumped $70,000 from a single letter is #### at their job.

Further, for a single letter to cause a $70,000 jump due to legal costs....wow that's an expensive letter.

Usually the legal costs are added onto the settlement of the injury, ie: $10,000 + costs. You used to see (and might still see) all inclusive costs, but generally lawyers prefer their costs be added onto the settlement.

Gio is correct. Its a matter of the insurance company coming to the table with a reasonable starting place.

I mostly do employment law and its the same; although, dealing with smaller amounts usually. Employees try to argue for increases in severance by themselves all the time, but companies usually balk until a lawyer is involved.

On this issue of costs, typically insurance companies will pay out the Schedule "C" costs under the Rules of Court. These are set costs depending on what has taken place in the action itself. They are far less than the standard 33% charged to an injured party.

If insurance companies wanted to cut legal costs, they could settle a file sooner...

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

re bolded:

Are you saying that as soon as someone retains a lawyer the insurance company automatically retains a lawyer?



Hmmmm, my experience is different. If you are correct when did this change?

UCB is correct, in my experience (i have friends in insurance defence too).

Not all insurance companies will lawyer up right away. They may way until a SOC is filed or when a Defence is requested.

Most insurance companies now do have in-house lawyers that deal with PI defence, but the majority are still dealt with by external counsel.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Now i'm looking at this as if its a minor injury so a $9000 offer is on par. If I were an adjuster and got a fake letter pretending to be retained as was stated in Cappy alluded to

"I sent the insurance company a letter saying i was retained and reviewing the matter." Now again i'm assuming he isn't a lawyer so this is coming in an email from a random person? Or maybe he is a lawyer so he is misrepresenting himself as he wasn't actually retained . . .

Ok now that we can look past the obvious BS an adjuster offered $9000 on a claim and you get an actual lawyer, I assume if they are discussing settlement already then the injuries are resolved so what is the lawyer going to do? That is going up to $20k-$30k tops if barely at all, so now you have inflated a claim by 300% and want to complain about the cost of insurance.

(1) i am a lawyer
(2) i was retained

Why would an insurance company pay my client more money just because they retained a lawyer. They are billion dollar companies whose job it is to limit payouts.

You are making too many assumptions to get to your "inflated claim thesis"

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by SebC

I was under the impression that our court system was overloaded, meaning that there is a need to hire more judges, and that any reduction of workload would diminish the need to do so, or at least move other cases up towards quicker resolution. Is that not the case? Do we have judges sitting on their butts, being paid salary, just waiting for the next case to come in?

The percentage of PI claims that make it to trial is extremely low and would make up a small percentage of Court time (outside of interlocutory applications which go to Application Judges and Justices).

But you are absolutely correct, there is an extreme lack of judges in Canada which is its own problem and is almost irrelevant to the discussion of no-fault

EDIT: the rare quintuple post! sorry guys, just catching up

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SebC

I was under the impression that our court system was overloaded, meaning that there is a need to hire more judges, and that any reduction of workload would diminish the need to do so, or at least move other cases up towards quicker resolution. Is that not the case? Do we have judges sitting on their butts, being paid salary, just waiting for the next case to come in?

Your claim was that no fault would reduce the number of judges we pay for. They are overloaded, yes. This won't help much. And it won't save money because the same number of judges will exist.