BREAKING NEWS! QB Strikes Down Cap On Minor Injuries!

[Cowboy89]

Interesting stuff Fredr123. Good read. Interesting also:

The legal industry was not above employing its own questionable tactics, with some success. The Accident Victims/Insurance Policyholders Advocate or AVIPA was the creation of Edmonton accident-injury lawyer Mark McCourt.
In October, 2003, AVIPA began running a newspaper advertisement which featured a sad-eyed young girl and her concerned mother under the headline "Did I Do Something Bad?"
"Two and a half years ago, my 7-year old daughter Rebecca was hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street at a marked crosswalk," the ad copy states. "Rebecca's jaw was broken, and she suffered multiple cuts, bruises, and soft-tissue injuries to her neck and back." Her mother tells the public that they cried each other to sleep on many nights not knowing if the pain and suffering would ever end.
"Now I hear that some MLAs in our provincial government don't believe my daughter deserves fair compensation for her pain and suffering.... Do these MLAs have no compassion?"
A disclaimer in fine print at the bottom of the ad reveals that Rebecca is a composite of numerous children injured by reckless or impaired drivers in Alberta. In fact, Rebecca was McCourt's own daughter and her mother was his sister-in-law.
McCourt said the ad was designed to inject some emotion into the auto-insurance debate. Some government MLAs criticized the ads as a crass attempt to manipulate, rather than inform, the public.
The ad, which ran in Edmonton and Calgary and on TV in Red Deer, initially appeared without a disclaimer. But when reporters began asking questions about Rebecca and her mother, McCourt said he realized the ad could be seen as misleading and the disclaimer was added.

[troutman]

You really need to read these excellent articles (too much to summarize here). It was really sinister how this all came about IMO.

[troutman]

A well-informed Laurie Blakeman grills our new Finance & Justice Ministers on Tory tort deform:


Automobile Insurance


Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, people still don't like the automobile insurance rate schemes this government has put forward. On the one side, we have auto insurance companies making billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars, and on the other side – well, I guess, actually, it's probably the same side – we have the government helping them to increase their profits. My question is to the minister of finance. Why doesn't the government stick up for average Albertans instead of for insurance companies?

Ms Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I haven't seen one shred of evidence of our sticking up for insurance companies relative to their profits. What I have seen is that we appealed the decision. Maybe the Justice minister would like to talk about the legal status of that particular judgment.

The Speaker: You have 15 seconds, if you can do it.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government believes firmly that it is in the best interests of Alberta to appeal the judge's decision. We can't comment further on that because it's before the court.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. I'm referring back to the finance minister's comments. It hardly seems justified, seeing as the insurance industry itself reports multibillion dollar profit lines. Why is the government allowing a situation where Albertans get a discount of a few percentage points while insurance companies have had a 2,000 per cent – 2,000 per cent – increase in profits in less than five years?

Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, in June the insurance rate board will meet again, and at that time they will be looking at the rates. At that time there may be some other opportunity to respond to anything they would bring forward, but quite frankly that is not on our agenda today. On our agenda is the follow-through. In the best interests of our people, as our Justice minister has said, it's before the courts. The rate increases are something that will be dealt with at such time as they bring them forward, or they may bring forward reductions. I have no idea.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Well, thanks for referring to the insurance rate board. I'd like to know why it is that of the 14 reports that are submitted to the Automobile Insurance Rate Board for its mandatory review of premiums, the government only seems to recognize the so-called facts brought forward by the insurance companies but not by those who are not an insurance company.

Ms Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, until such time as we review exactly what is presented to the insurance rate board, it would be really unfair of me to comment. There's been an allegation by the member opposite that the government doesn't review all of that material. I'll look into that and respond in due course.

[fredr123]

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...39026-sun.html

As evidence Alberta drivers will be forced to swallow a steep premium hike this fall mounts, a city injury lawyer says there are ways to stabilize insurance rates without slamming consumers.

Trimming insurers' skyrocketing profits is a good place to start, said Mark McCourt, a Calgary lawyer publicly spreading the message Albertans don't have to cough up more cash to balance insurance companies' books.

"On February 11, 2008, Statistics Canada reported that (Property and Casualty Insurance) in Canada profit in 2006 was $7.7 billion," he said.

"Compared to the $340 million earned by the industry in 2002, that's more than a 2,000 percent increase in four years."

But since the soft-injury cap was struck down, the province estimates rates will have to rise anywhere from $84 to $164 per policy this fall.

[Slava]

^ Man public insurance just looks better and better from where I'm sitting...and I'm an almost total capitalist!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Man public insurance just looks better and better from where I'm sitting...and I'm an almost total capitalist!

That $7.7 Billion number has to be put into prospective as I'm sure the capital employed by the sector is rather substatial and thus this represents a decent return on capital. Using 2002 is also a poor reference point as any industry that depends on stock market returns performed poorly in that year as it was probably the bottom of market in the past decade. I'm sure as an FA you'd agree with me that 2002 wasn't pretty.

While the more I learn about this story I agree the whole thing stinks, but I don't see how you improve efficiency, reduce corruption, and benefit consumers as a whole by nationalizing it. Sure rates might go down but the taxpayers will be subsidizing the difference. Therefore transit riders who also draw a taxable income will be paying for those that drive. That in my mind is just as bad as accident victims subsidizing other drivers and insurance company profits by taking an artificially lower settlement. I think now that the QB has struck this down it's time drivers face facts and realize that what they pay in insurance reflects their share of the cost of risk on our road system. If you dont' want to pay your share then get off the road.

[Slava]

^ I see what you are saying here Cowboy. Like I say...I'm a capitalist and can't dsiagree with you on this. I do hate that in an area with so much regulation (which I think is required) that some of the companies turn such a large profit and cry poverty at the same time though.

[Myth]

Talking about people scamming the system, no one has mentioned people like this. A few years ago I was in an accident. It was the other guy's fault and it was more of a fender bender than anything. Anyhow the passenger in his car was suing for $75000 and the passenger's wife was also suing for $75000. SHE WASN'T EVEN IN THE CAR!!!! But, she claimed that since the accident she could no longer live the lifestyle she was accustomed to and some other crap like that. Absolutely ridiculous.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I see what you are saying here Cowboy. Like I say...I'm a capitalist and can't dsiagree with you on this. I do hate that in an area with so much regulation (which I think is required) that some of the companies turn such a large profit and cry poverty at the same time though.

It is true that there is hypocracy in the PR that the companies spin, but also keep in mind that the public plays that game too and cries poverty too as if $164/year for someone who already has enough scratch to keep a car on the road will break them and that it's a public good to keep everyone on 4 wheels and thus the government has to intervene into the process further.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Myth

Talking about people scamming the system, no one has mentioned people like this.

Are you kidding me? It's been mentioned a million times, and if you read this entire thread, you will discover this argument is completely exaggerated.

See post # 82

[ken0042]

While public insurance may have some advantages, it's really only better for those under 25. And if you are currently under 25; you won't be for long.

Last time I looked my car which I pay $1200 for here would be $1500 to insure in Winnipeg. Don't look at Saskatchewan because they don't have any cities that are close to the size of Calgary; or if you do compare insurance rates in Grande Prairie to Regina.

Plus, MPIC in Winnipeg already has this cap in place for soft tissue injuries. So what would there be to stop "APIC" from doing the same thing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- I pay for insurance so that if something bad happens I will be protected; no matter what. So tell me how much it is to cover me and cover me. Because once we let them exclude one thing, what's next to be dropped?

[Slava]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- I pay for insurance so that if something bad happens I will be protected; no matter what. So tell me how much it is to cover me and cover me. Because once we let them exclude one thing, what's next to be dropped?

I agree with you 100% there. I understand the value of insurance and of course just want the best coverage that I can get. I don't want a whole pile of exclusions, but I also don't want to have a cap in place to increase profits for the insurers when they provide false data (or data based on 2002 market returns when this is not a historic norm).

Anyway...the insurers got away with one for a few years and I guess we are all going to pay for that now.

[Myth]

Originally Posted by troutman

Are you kidding me? It's been mentioned a million times, and if you read this entire thread, you will discover this argument is completely exaggerated.

See post # 82

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough in my post. I read about alot of people scamming the system by "enhancing" their injuries, but I didn't see anything about people like the wife in my situation who sue when they aren't even involved in the accident. Those are the people I was referring to.

[Finny61]

In short, coming from the insurance industry, I can tell you there are a great deal of greedy selfish people who will take any opportunity to make a gain. It's disgusting. That's all I've got to say about it.

[ken0042]

Then Finny, the solution isn't to reduce payments to everybody, but to toughen the penalties for making false claims. I know its hard with soft tissue, but in the cases where the guy says he can't work, then they find him on the golf course, send him to jail- for at least a year. Period.

That's what the insurance industry should be lobbying for.

[fredr123]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...c-0c7a4d1e84a5

Costs to drivers will spike an average of 11 per cent if a cap on compensation is not kept in place, a new report suggests, as Alberta's auto insurance rate board prepares to hear arguments on whether to change premiums or maintain the current rate.

The increase suggested in the report would mean a premium increase of between $60 and $75 dollars per year for many Albertans, based on compulsory insurance rates of about $600 to $700.


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/...90331-sun.html


Alberta's failed experiment with a government-imposed cap on claims for minor injuries will come home to roost for drivers this week as the insurance industry seeks approval for a hefty rate hike.

...

Two days of hearings are to start tomorrow in Calgary to determine whether the increase will be approved.



Hearings begin on June 17, 2008 at 9:00 am in the Telus Convention Centre. The Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Facility Association are up first

[troutman]

Why do they need to increase rates when they are making record profits? They are stalling on "minor" injury cases as they await the appeal. So, they are not paying out settlements. Back when this all started, they said they didn't even need a cap.

Lies, lies, and more lies.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Finny61

In short, coming from the insurance industry, I can tell you there are a great deal of greedy selfish people who will take any opportunity to make a gain. It's disgusting. That's all I've got to say about it.

They still have to prove their claims.

Post # 82:

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.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why do they need to increase rates when they are making record profits? They are stalling on "minor" injury cases as they await the appeal. So, they are not paying out settlements. Back when this all started, they said they didn't even need a cap.

Lies, lies, and more lies.

.

Accounting profits are different from economic profits. You can give a company an allotment of cash today to invest in a project, have that project pay out accounting earnings year after year but still not achieve an economic rate of return.

[Slava]

The insurance companies are doing the same thing as the banks...relying on their returns in the market to enhance their returns from their core business. As a consumer though we shouldn't have to pay to subsidize their investments.