Insurance Reform Survey

[undercoverbrother]

https://www.alberta.ca/automobile-in...-CzCTVQAJ5k-EA

have your say

[Torture]

So as usual, the agenda of the survey is pretty transparent with the way the questions flow. Pretty much all of the questions I've seen so far relate to these two. Thoughts:

Would you be willing to give up your right to sue an at-fault driver for a cash settlement if it meant that:
a) you received the treatment and rehabilitation you needed to get better;
b) you received the income replacement you needed to help pay your bills while you recover; and
c) you could pay less for your automobile insurance.

13.
Would you be willing to give up your right to sue an at-fault driver for a cash settlement if it meant that:
a) you received the treatment and rehabilitation you needed to get better;
b) you received the income replacement you needed to help pay your bills while you recover; and
c) you could pay less for your automobile insurance.

[Wormius]

So when the survey keeps referring to suing the driver, they mean the at-fault driver's insurance?


What do battling insurance companies have to do with the Alberta government?


The whole survey reeks of double-speak and obsfucation.

[GGG]

In Saskatchewan at one point they went to a hybrid no-fault vs Tort system.

In a no-fault system there are set payouts for certain injuries. You effectively get demonstrated losses. So lost income plus therapy and then very limited pain and suffering payouts. The goal in Saskatchewan at the time was to reduce insurance premiums by reducing payouts and legal fees.

In theory where accidents, injuries and recovery could all be put in neat boxes of severity and consequence it would be an excellent system. Unfortunately the world doesn’t work like that. I was leaving Saskatchewan as this was being implemented so don’t know whatever happened or how it worked out.

But going to a no-fault vs a tort system has been done in other jurisdictions.

[blankall]

It basically turns the motor vehicle tort system into WCB. Great in theory. Awful in practice. Talk to anyone who's ever been denied WCB benefits for a legit injury. You'll have a panel of government designated adjusters, tribunal members, and doctors deciding your fate.

There is some kind of crisis in the insurance industry as a whole though. Premiums are soaring and the insurers cannot cover payouts. In my opinion, it's another symptom of the growing divide between capital and wages. Costs for things like repairs and treatments are increasing dramatically. Salaries to pay premiums are not.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by blankall

It basically turns the motor vehicle tort system into WCB. Great in theory. Awful in practice. Talk to anyone who's ever been denied WCB benefits for a legit injury. You'll have a panel of government designated adjusters, tribunal members, and doctors deciding your fate.

There is some kind of crisis in the insurance industry as a whole though. Premiums are soaring and the insurers cannot cover payouts. In my opinion, it's another symptom of the growing divide between capital and wages. Costs for things like repairs and treatments are increasing dramatically. Salaries to pay premiums are not.

I think that there's an issue for sure, but I do wonder how much of an issue are the lawsuits as compared to claims for things like hail damages? The costs to repair vehicles are extremely high, and when you have a storm blow through and pound a few thousand vehicles at a time it's also hammering to loss ratio for the insurers.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that there's an issue for sure, but I do wonder how much of an issue are the lawsuits as compared to claims for things like hail damages? The costs to repair vehicles are extremely high, and when you have a storm blow through and pound a few thousand vehicles at a time it's also hammering to loss ratio for the insurers.

Like I said, repair costs for services, like hail damage are soaring.