BREAKING NEWS! QB Strikes Down Cap On Minor Injuries!

[fredr123]

I know a guy who was able to get up and walk away from a rollover accident. Shortly thereafter he lost all feeling and movement from his waist down.

[Burninator]

On the surface this seems like a good decision. I prefer the idea of a possible increase in frivolous/illegitimate lawsuits if it means someone who is seriously hurt can get the proper compensation. People abusing the legal system is secondary to people who are getting abused by the same system IMO.

[troutman]

Lots of reaction:

Government shouldn't play favourites in fight over capped insurance awards
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...3-f1179ae2cb11

It's not surprising that Jim Rivait, the Insurance Bureau's regional president, was taken aback by a judge's decision to strike down the cap on compensation for car accident injury victims. What a great deal that cap was for the insurance companies!

I don't know anybody who saved more than a few bucks, if anything, on their annual car insurance premiums.

However, I do know people who were injured by reckless drivers. Why should those victims lose out while the insurance companies rake in billions in profits per year?

Crash course for auto insurance
Alberta government faces conundrum after court ruling
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...f-cb618304742d

Contrary to popular assumptions, insurance companies typically depend more heavily upon the stock market, than underwriting for their profits.

Would it make sense for the government to call the industry's bluff? If auto insurance is so unprofitable as the industry claims, why is it eager to move into provinces that have public auto insurance? It's an interesting question that perhaps needs debating.

In any event, the government faces a conundrum: Many people hate the cap, but everybody hates higher premiums -- and there's an election coming.

Yet, when a judge ruled lower premiums cannot be on the tab of injured people, he got it right.

Public car insurance takes centre stage
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...c-dba65b392715

Progressive Conservative Leader Ed Stelmach shot down calls for provincial public auto insurance.

Liberal Leader Kevin Taft said he's open to examining the merits of public auto insurance if the ruling means rates will jump.

NDP Leader Brian Mason supports publicly run provincial insurance. The insurance industry in Canada made a profit of $7.2 billion in 2006 and now they say they need another increase in premiums because of this ruling," Mason said. "Any increased cost (from the ruling) should not come out of the pockets of ordinary Albertans."

Wildrose Alliance Leader Paul Hinman said he would implement a system that encourages personal responsibility -- and leaves the high rates to the drivers who rack up accidents and tickets.

[troutman]

Premium trouble for Tories
An unwelcome election bombshell for Premier Ed: Auto insurance will jump $200 per vehicle
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...838227-sun.php

Premier Ed's Tories have another mess on their plate, this one a doozy of a disaster. Yet another screwup from the party who gets away with every goof because so many here think the Conservatives can simply do no wrong.

A few years ago, the auto insurance business goes from making profits to making stratospheric profits, record profits in the billions, while consumers face big premium hikes. Drivers across the country are not happy and demand action, even in usually complacent Alberta.

The Tories, who mouth off a lot about representing the people, do the usual -- the bare minimum -- and conduct a behind-closed-doors phony-baloney review of auto insurance, with Rob Renner at the helm. Renner is the well-respected Medicine Hat florist who is always a sure bet to take up space, do the square root of squat and still get re-elected. Sharing top billing is a lawyer who is Ralph's best buddy and the rest of the group is a bunch of insurance types. There is no representation for regular drivers. No surprise there.

"It also confirms prejudices that soft-tissue injuries are generally faked or exaggerated. The impact of the discrimination cannot be viewed as trivial when the impugned legislation reinforces prejudicial stereotypes." [Justice Neil Wittman]

[FlamesKickAss]

Wildrose Alliance Leader Paul Hinman said he would implement a system that encourages personal responsibility -- and leaves the high rates to the drivers who rack up accidents and tickets.

what does he thinks happens right now?

the grid system only made it cheaper for driver's that were paying too much because of inexperience and bad driving record.

[burn_this_city]

I agree that soft tissue injuries are very real but settlements should be based on the amount of treatment required post accident. I also think they should *gasp* cap the amount lawyers can take on these settlements.. The average 30% is a bit much and I would need alot of convincing to believe otherwise..

[Ozy_Flame]

Not sure how the payout distribution is done, but I would suggest that to avoid the now very-real possibility of exaggerated insurance claims, individuals should be either required to pay for all treatments themselves and get reimbursed after six months to a year, or be given a settlement upfront according to an objective medical doctor's assessment of rehabilitiation. If not enough is given, the insurance will cover the difference at the end of the year, and if too much is given, then the victim is required to pay the difference back.

Just giving out money willy nilly to people for the sake of settling is a terrible way to solve a true measure of pain. Too many dishonest people to trust.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I agree that soft tissue injuries are very real but settlements should be based on the amount of treatment required post accident. I also think they should *gasp* cap the amount lawyers can take on these settlements.. The average 30% is a bit much and I would need alot of convincing to believe otherwise..

Lawyer fees are not added on to the award, and are negotiable. The settlements would be the same, whatever the lawyer's percentage. Lawyers might be reluctant to take cases if the contingency was lower (complicated cases can be a lot of work).

I think most injury lawyers charge a sliding rate, depending at what stage the cases settles. They take a lot of risk in opening a file - they might not get paid very much for the work they do in some cases. It is an unusual system, but necessary, where many Plaintiffs can't afford to pay a lawyer up front. There are not many professionals that get paid this way - can you imagine financial planners only getting paid when your investments increase?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by troutman

Lawyer fees are not added on to the award, and are negotiable. The settlements would be the same, whatever the lawyer's percentage. Lawyers might be reluctant to take cases if the contingency was lower (complicated cases can be a lot of work).

I think most injury lawyers charge a sliding rate, depending at what stage the cases settles. They take a lot of risk in opening a file - they might not get paid very much for the work they do in some cases. It is an unusual system, but necessary, where many Plaintiffs can't afford to pay a lawyer up front. There are not many professionals that get paid this way - can you imagine financial planners only getting paid when your investments increase?

I agree with alot of what your saying.. But some of these cases are pretty cut and dry and insurance is more than willing to settle prior to it going to court.. Its pretty tough to tell how much time they actually put in the case, we don't exactly see timesheets.. But I don't feel making a half dozen phone calls and faxing a letter the insurance companies warrants a $5000 payout on $15,000.. My friend was in a pretty severe accident where he almost died, he was lucky not to have any long term injuries. His lawyer took over $30,000 off his settlement at the end.. He kept phoning my buddy and telling him to go for more and more and more.. Eventually the insurance company told him this is all your getting or we'll see you in court.. I think some sort of oversight is required if its going back to a free for all like before.. Otherwise it will be the average driver paying for all of this..

[fredr123]

Litigation financing has become more prominent in the USA in recent years. Instead of having your lawyer assume all the risk, you go to a lender who is willing to take some kind of security in your cause of action. It's not exactly a loan per se since you don't have to pay back the advances in most cases (quite possibly to avoid meddling).

I don't know how they run the numbers on these things, but I can't imagine such providers are willing to take on a lot of risk with little reward. You might even be giving up a bigger chunk of any potential award than if you were to enter into a contingency fee arrangement with your lawyer.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Not sure how the payout distribution is done, but I would suggest that to avoid the now very-real possibility of exaggerated insurance claims, individuals should be either required to pay for all treatments themselves and get reimbursed after six months to a year, or be given a settlement upfront according to an objective medical doctor's assessment of rehabilitiation. If not enough is given, the insurance will cover the difference at the end of the year, and if too much is given, then the victim is required to pay the difference back.

Just giving out money willy nilly to people for the sake of settling is a terrible way to solve a true measure of pain. Too many dishonest people to trust.

Well thats what I've had to do. I'm out about $4500 gross ($3800 net) out of my own pocket in after tax money in paying for my wife's treatments. We've had to pay for the stuff, than file claims to my insurance, than to hers, than to the auto insurance company (Which has taken several hours and been frustrating as hell too I may add). All of which has amounted to me getting about $700 of my total expenses back.

Now my wife and I as a couple make an above average household income and have no children so we have been able to afford out of pocket expenses like this. Although I would absolutely love to have that money back in my pocket instead to take a trip to Hawaii, buy a new washer dryer etc...but right now I have to make due without it, and keep paying about $90 a week in treatments. But what about a family of 4 with only one working parent trying to get by on 60 grand a year who suffered an accident like this? that would hit them pretty fricken hard. Probably to the point where they try to skimp on treating the injury because it's too expensive. And if it's like our situation, they were not at fault at all for someone elses negligence, and have to suffer in the short term.

It's nice to paint all accident victims as money hungry people looking to cheat the system but it's not always the case. Even a seemingly minor accident can really cause people a lot of grief. And it really does irk you when the accident is a result of 100% negligence by the other party. Believe me I'd much rather have never had to deal with any of this BS or my wife having bad head aches 3-4 days a week than receive a rediculous settlement. Good health is something that has no price. The money that I'm out of pocket for is secondary compared to all the other issues it has caused in our household.

[fredr123]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...31e0e4&k=41133

Stelmach plans to appeal the ruling and ask for a stay:

"After careful review the government firmly believes it's in the best interests of Albertans to appeal the judge's decision and apply for a stay," Stelmach told reporters during a campaign stop at Calgary's Telus World of Science.

"It's based on ensuring auto insurance rates remain affordable."

[troutman]

Originally Posted by fredr123

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...31e0e4&k=41133

Stelmach plans to appeal the ruling and ask for a stay:

"After careful review the government firmly believes it's in the best interests of Albertans to appeal the judge's decision and apply for a stay," Stelmach told reporters during a campaign stop at Calgary's Telus World of Science.

"It's based on ensuring auto insurance rates remain affordable."

Sounds like Ed just wants to sweep it under the rug until the election is over. I can't imagine an appeal will be successful.

The cap was not the right way to make rates affordable.

NDP leader Brian Mason said the decision to appeal favours big insurance companies over families.

"Their appeal will fail," Mason said in Edmonton. "The Conservatives will protect the insurance industry and blame the courts for a $200 increase in insurance prices. Inaction by the Conservatives will lead to a $200 increase in the insurance bill for the average driver."

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by troutman

Sound like Ed just wants to sweep in under the rug until the election is over. I can't imagine an appeal will be successful.

The cap was not the right way to make rates affordable.

I'm trying to remember if I saw any kind of savings when the rate freeze and MIR went into effect. I seem to recall the normal nominal age-based male reduction upon reaching a milestone age that, of course, wasn't based on age or gender but that's about it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by troutman

The cap was not the right way to make rates affordable.

Agreed. What should have been done was enacted legislation that made reporting false insurance claims a more serious offence. That way you could eliminate the people who are there to just exploit the situation while still allowing those truely affected to get what is owed to them.

I don't buy insurance because it's too good of a deal to pass up. I buy it to cover my losses should the unexpected happen.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I am not one for government run corporations. But what is stopping the government from running their own for profit/break even insurance company that is NOT subsidized that could compete with the other insurance companies to bring down rates?

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am not one for government run corporations. But what is stopping the government from running their own for profit/break even insurance company that is NOT subsidized that could compete with the other insurance companies to bring down rates?

Nothing but what happens when everyone goes there, then claims are paid by that insurer, then the rates go up anyways.

I think a cap is good but, i think it needs to be in place differently because there are some cases like we have heard here that warrants more money for the injured person.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

Nothing but what happens when everyone goes there, then claims are paid by that insurer, then the rates go up anyways.

I think a cap is good but, i think it needs to be in place differently because there are some cases like we have heard here that warrants more money for the injured person.

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.

[FlamesKickAss]

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.

yea but the definition of insurance is to share the losses of a few across the many

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

yea but the definition of insurance is to share the losses of a few across the many

Exactly, so if the government had there own insurance company that competed directly with private companies, the government would only be concerned with breaking even, not making billions therefor the cost would be distrubited more equitably.