BREAKING NEWS! QB Strikes Down Cap On Minor Injuries!

[troutman]

Tories to appeal ruling on auto injuries
Grits say court challenge will likely fail
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...3-f5de5088aabb

Taft said he believes the province's appeal is doomed for failure and is simply an attempt to bury the issue during the election campaign.

"Instead of appealing this and dragging the process out for years and years, which leaves any number of people in limbo, I think it's time to revisit the entire issue and reconsider how we deliver auto insurance in the province," Taft said Tuesday.

"They want to put this off the table. I don't think it would disappear that quickly."

Why take hard line on soft tissue?
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...c-eba9c762bcff

The Tories might as well paint a new campaign slogan on that big blue bus: "We favour car insurance that's not too expensive, but worthless when you're hurt."

It's worth recalling that Stelmach was right there at the cabinet table when this idiotic policy was devised.

In 2004, the Tories were in a panic over the rising rates young drivers were being forced to pay. So they crafted an unfair, unconstitutional solution and made it law.

The whole sorry episode smacks of a cool political cynicism nobody has ever associated with Ed Stelmach.

But that impression could stick in people's minds, unless he very quickly sees his mistake and reverses this odious decision.

Cap on collision compensation added insult to injury
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...4-219044df206c

My own case -- rear-ended by a 21-year-old kid at John Laurie Boulevard and Shaganappi Trail, in what turned out to be the third accident he'd caused that month -- was settled long before the cap was brought in. Rather, the vindication is in this official recognition that people who say they suffered a soft-tissue injury in a car accident should not be assumed to be faking it for the sake of a settlement.

Let the gluttonous insurance companies wail that they're hard done by. They're looking out for the bloated profits they make from their investments. Auto insurance premiums did not go down after the cap was put in place; if they are raised now, then it's the drivers who are at fault in these accidents who should be hit with steep increases.

Really, it shouldn't be hard to weed out the scam artists. The doctor I was seeing at the time of the accident said that people who fake it are easily detectable. Since they don't know anything about anatomy, especially the nervous system, they have no clue about the cascade of symptoms, or how nerve damage over here equates to pain over there. So the symptoms they claim to have don't make sense in a way a medical text could confirm.

Besides, it takes a lot of effort to keep up a facade of being hurt for the two years it takes to reach a settlement. Few people can carry it out that long.

[troutman]

Alberta to appeal cap ruling
Gov't moves to ensure car-insurance 'rates remain affordable': Stelmach
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...585d8a&k=93060

During the court case, Dennis Gartner, the province's superintendent of insurance during the reforms, admitted under oath that the government had no way of knowing how much money insurance companies were making.

The stay application will be heard by Wittmann, who has already rejected the government's request for a similar stay, saying he couldn't allow the breach of people's rights to continue.

"I think the chances are slim because we are not just talking about the rights of only the parties to this action," Billingsley said.

"We are talking about the rights of a lot of other people out there who have cases pending."

It has been estimated at least 3,500 cases hinge on the outcome of this case.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Another reason why the tories need to be knocked down to size.

[Slava]

If my insurance rates rise more than $37 than I know that the fix is in. That was the whole amount of savings for me when the reforms came in. There is no reason that the increase now should be any more than the savings.

[fredr123]

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.

[Ozy_Flame]

Guys, is anyone else around here besides myself in favour of a cap? It's so easy to think of the victims, but what about people who accidentally hit someone and become victims themselves of insurance fraud?

I find it very easy to say "get rid of caps!" but all it takes to nudge someone is one slippery road and you're in a whole heap of trouble without an insurance cap...

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Guys, is anyone else around here besides myself in favour of a cap? It's so easy to think of the victims, but what about people who accidentally hit someone and become victims themselves of insurance fraud?

I find it very easy to say "get rid of caps!" but all it takes to nudge someone is one slippery road and you're in a whole heap of trouble without an insurance cap...

Like troutman said above, you have to PROVE your damages in court. Most fraudsters are discovered before a payout is made. The incidence of these things is actually quite low but the media does a good job of sensationalizing the odd instance when one of them slips through the system.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Guys, is anyone else around here besides myself in favour of a cap? It's so easy to think of the victims, but what about people who accidentally hit someone and become victims themselves of insurance fraud?

I find it very easy to say "get rid of caps!" but all it takes to nudge someone is one slippery road and you're in a whole heap of trouble without an insurance cap...

I can understand your concerns, I have them aswell. But putting a cap in place is not the answer. We have a court system in place. Rewards were not being rewarded like they were in the USA. We really didn't have a problem until the cap came in.

Can you imagine if you were in a car accident and had a soft tissue injury? Some muscle or nerve strain that you couldn't fix and gave you a bunch of pain for a long time and all you could get was $4000. Did you deserve that?

Not to mention, why is it stuck at $4000. Shouldn't it increase at the rate of inflation?

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Guys, is anyone else around here besides myself in favour of a cap? It's so easy to think of the victims, but what about people who accidentally hit someone and become victims themselves of insurance fraud?

I find it very easy to say "get rid of caps!" but all it takes to nudge someone is one slippery road and you're in a whole heap of trouble without an insurance cap...

Well if you carry insurance chance is it's not you that pays the personal injury claim. It's the insurance company. And generally it doesn't matter a lick if you caused a million dollar claim or a $10,000 claim, your insurance goes up. The increase in rates will affect anyone, and if insurance companies choose to hit drivers who have more liability associated with them than so be it. But any increases will be reviewed by a board and I'm sure they won't make it so that someone who hits a guy in a minor accident has their insurance increase 400%.

If you're insurance company can't hire a better lawyer than the guy trying to defraud them than I suggest you find a different insurance company. Insurance Companies should be well schooled in litigation to the point where they're the favorite in any case.

[Slava]

^ I guess my major issue with the cap is who much money does it actually save the consumer? We have to buy insurance by law (not that I would ever go without, or think that anyone should!!). If they are going to cap the damages and everyone saves a pile of money; then as long as we feel as a society that people are limited as to their injury compensation that is fine.

The problem with this cap though is that most drivers saved insignificant amounts of money, and the damages were capped...so the profits simply remained with the corporations.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

The problem with this cap though is that most drivers saved insignificant amounts of money, and the damages were capped...so the profits simply remained with the corporations.

Exactly. Another thing I was thinking of the other day... the law says we must have a minimum of something like $250K of PLPD on our insurance. How many of us have that little? How many of us have $1M or even more? I know I went to $2M a while ago not just for the PLPD aspect; but also to increase my coverage for an underinsured motorist.

Why did I do that, so that in the case of an accident I am covered financially.

Insurance companies- pay for our damages. If there's an issue with people defrauding the insurance industry loby the gov't to make insurance fraud a serious crime. Don't punnish innocent idividuals (your customers) for people who commit crimes.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I guess my major issue with the cap is who much money does it actually save the consumer? We have to buy insurance by law (not that I would ever go without, or think that anyone should!!). If they are going to cap the damages and everyone saves a pile of money; then as long as we feel as a society that people are limited as to their injury compensation that is fine.

The problem with this cap though is that most drivers saved insignificant amounts of money, and the damages were capped...so the profits simply remained with the corporations.

Section B benefits for pre-authorized treatments went from a max of $10,000 to $50,000 after the reforms came in.

[RougeUnderoos]

Does your insurance go up or down if you have one of these things? It seems like a good idea because you won't be fussing with the newspaper as much.



Possibly a hoax but it looks real enough (in that the url seems real).

http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Reader-Bo...867185&sr=8-44

[Slava]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Section B benefits for pre-authorized treatments went from a max of $10,000 to $50,000 after the reforms came in.

True, but those benefits are more restrictive in the way that they are administered. You get 21 maximum treatments for soft tissue injuries, whereas before you basically had treatments until you felt (or your physician felt) that you no longer needed them. (At least from what I know...please correct me if I'm wrong here?)

[troutman]

[fredr123]

Here's an excellent example of journalism from Charles Rusnell at the Edmonton Journal regarding the insurance industry crisis. Make sure you check out the related stories (three are posted online so far: here, here and here) to get a sense of some of the things that go on unseen in the political process.

[troutman]

^^^

The PCs need to go. The time has come. Get out and vote. This stuff is really evil:

Despite the fact that the study found no evidence whatsoever of fraud, the coalition, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, repeatedly stated as fact that the study showed fraud was being committed on a large scale. By claiming that 24 per cent of all personal injury claims in Alberta were fraudulent, the coalition and the insurance bureau had effectively accused nearly a quarter of all accident-injured Albertans of fraud, an unsubstantiated accusation that was nevertheless widely reported by the media.

[fredr123]

This was my favorite part:

During the civil lawsuit that was launched after passage of the bill, the lawyers for the plaintiffs wanted to know how the government could justify that discrimination. To that end, the plaintiff's original lawyer, Robert Graesser, led Dennis Gartner, the province's superintendent of insurance, through some simple mathematical calculations to contextualize the logic behind the government's auto insurance reforms.

Gartner agreed that when the reforms were first contemplated in 2002, roughly 10,000 accident victims would have fallen under the proposed $4,000 cap. The cap would deny each minor accident victim about $20,000 in compensation for pain and suffering, saving insurance companies about $200 million a year. Assuming the insurance companies passed those savings on to drivers, that worked out to about a $150 a year in insurance premium savings for each driver. Roughly half of Albertan's 3.5 million residents would benefit from the reforms.

Gartner conceded the government did not consider it appropriate to discriminate against young or old people or, for that matter, against any individual based on their personal circumstances.

"But the government did consider it appropriate to take $20,000 away from 10,000 Albertans to give $150 on average to approximately 50 per cent of Albertans?" Graesser asked.

"Based on the calculation, the logic that we went through, correct," Gartner replied.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

^^^

The PCs need to go. The time has come. Get out and vote. This stuff is really evil:

Despite the fact that the study found no evidence whatsoever of fraud, the coalition, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, repeatedly stated as fact that the study showed fraud was being committed on a large scale. By claiming that 24 per cent of all personal injury claims in Alberta were fraudulent, the coalition and the insurance bureau had effectively accused nearly a quarter of all accident-injured Albertans of fraud, an unsubstantiated accusation that was nevertheless widely reported by the media.

I full-heartedly agree with the top point, however to defend insurance companies, it's not like it's an easy thing to prove that a plaintiff is lying about their soft-tissue injuries. The Plaintiff's pain and suffering is often the only way to make a determination in a lot of cases. Which means essentially the only person who really knows the extent would be the injured/fake injured. Hence the ability to easily cheat the system.

I was in a 6-car pile-up whose fault was determined to be the three cars behind me back in High School (years before the cap on soft tissue). Everyone in the crash were students at my high school. The first question their insurance company had for me was how much did I need for whiplash considering the two people in the cars immediately behind me were seeking $10,000 a piece. Since I went to football practice that afternoon and every other afternoon after the accident and suffered no lingering effects I declined. I settled for a cheque for the value of my first vehicle, a Red 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager (AKA the Shaggin Wagon!) that was written off.

Why would they be so willing to stuff money in my face? Because they knew I could have gotten my chunk out of them in court should I have bothered to manufacture a case based on exaggerated pain and suffering, costing them a bunch in legal fees on top of whatever settlement I won. Lower forms of life indeed milked the system for more than was deserved. Whether it be the 24% figure or 10% or 5%, all the insurance companies knew is that soft-tissue expenses was becoming an expense that was increasing exponentially with eash passing year that was severly impacting the cost of insurance to the end user.

Now either this really and truly was the cost of pain and suffering and thus insurance rates were fairly priced and nothing should have been done or they were getting hosed by fraud or a combination of both. In either case the wrong decision was made because the PCs 'solution' wrongly lumped in the 76% (or more as stated by the quote) of people who legitimately needed compensation for their injuries with the fraudsters. In other words the old Soviet method of capturing 50 innocent people to ensure the one guilty person gets their punnishment.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I full-heartedly agree with the top point, however to defend insurance companies, it's not like it's an easy thing to prove that a plaintiff is lying about their soft-tissue injuries. The Plaintiff's pain and suffering is often the only way to make a determination in a lot of cases. Which means essentially the only person who really knows the extent would be the injured/fake injured. Hence the ability to easily cheat the system.

I was in a 6-car pile-up whose fault was determined to be the three cars behind me back in High School (years before the cap on soft tissue). Everyone in the crash were students at my high school. The first question their insurance company had for me was how much did I need for whiplash considering the two people in the cars immediately behind me were seeking $10,000 a piece. Since I went to football practice that afternoon and every other afternoon after the accident and suffered no lingering effects I declined. I settled for a cheque for the value of my first vehicle, a Red 1990 Plymouth Grand Voyager (AKA the Shaggin Wagon!) that was written off.

Why would they be so willing to stuff money in my face? Because they knew I could have gotten my chunk out of them in court should I have bothered to manufacture a case based on exaggerated pain and suffering, costing them a bunch in legal fees on top of whatever settlement I won. Lower forms of life indeed milked the system for more than was deserved. Whether it be the 24% figure or 10% or 5%, all the insurance companies knew is that soft-tissue expenses was becoming an expense that was increasing exponentially with eash passing year that was severly impacting the cost of insurance to the end user.

Now either this really and truly was the cost of pain and suffering and thus insurance rates were fairly priced and nothing should have been done or they were getting hosed by fraud or a combination of both. In either case the wrong decision was made because the PCs 'solution' wrongly lumped in the 76% (or more as stated by the quote) of people who legitimately needed compensation for their injuries with the fraudsters. In other words the old Soviet method of capturing 50 innocent people to ensure the one guilty person gets their punnishment.

Cowboy89, I would encourage you to read part three of the story (the third "here") regarding that insurance industry story. Here's a bit more of the surrounding paragraphs that troutman quoted to give even more context:

The media, including The Journal, took the coalition, and its study, at face value and reported that auto insurance fraud had become common, was increasing, and was at least partially to blame for skyrocketing premiums. Unfortunately, none of it was true.


Court documents filed in the civil lawsuit show the coalition hired two business professors from St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia to conduct the study in the fall of 2000. The professors, along with an industry professional, supervised a group of claims examiners who reviewed more than 4,000 closed-claims files that had been selected by the insurance industry.


Although the coalition trumpeted the study as proof of fraud in personal injury claims, the professors said the study was only meant to provide a tool for claims examiners to better detect indicators of potential fraud.
In fact, the examiners did not find any proof of fraud in any of the files examined. That is not surprising given that the examiners were only looking for so-called "red flag" indicators of potential fraud that would give them reason to more closely examine a particular file. But even these indicators were suspect.


The review used a list of indicators provided by the insurance industry. It included: when a lawyer submits a claim on behalf of a client; when a claimant was self-employed or was driving a rental car; if photocopies were submitted; and if the claimant handled all business related to the claim by mail, or in person.


Despite the fact that the study found no evidence whatsoever of fraud, the coalition, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, repeatedly stated as fact that the study showed fraud was being committed on a large scale. By claiming that 24 per cent of all personal injury claims in Alberta were fraudulent, the coalition and the insurance bureau had effectively accused nearly a quarter of all accident-injured Albertans of fraud, an unsubstantiated accusation that was nevertheless widely reported by the media.


The Canadian Coalition Against Insurance Fraud was not what it seemed either. Court documents show the supposed coalition operated from the same Toronto office as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the main lobbying arm of the Canadian insurance industry. The insurance bureau also provided the coalition with its phones, its bank account, its GST number and a portion of its funding.


The coalition's Alberta spokeswoman - Louise Bremness - was the insurance bureau's prairie regional manager. Nancy Tibbo, the coalition's national director from 2000 to 2003, worked for the insurance bureau both before and after her stint with the coalition and is now the bureau's manager of public affairs. And the professors said the study had been commissioned by the coalition and the insurance bureau.