Kathleen Wynne once promised to lower car insurance rates. Guess what happened next
As we enter the home stretch for the Ontario election, one election issue that has received surprisingly little coverage is the problem with car insurance rates. I am not a quant and I don’t work for Google or SpaceX. But then, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the math around Ontario’s car insurance rates simply doesn’t add up.
______________________________ ______________________________ ______
Ontario Election 2018: Trailing Liberals promise auto insurance discounts
Polls show the Ontario Liberals will not likely govern the province after the election this Thursday but, for what it’s worth, a vote for Liberal candidates is a vote for insurance discounts for motorists who use apps intended to discourage distracted driving.
______________________________ ______________________________ _____
Drivers take on car insurance companies for coverage you can’t get in Canada
It’s the insurance claim you can’t make — to be compensated for the value a vehicle loses after being damaged in a crash.
Even when repairs are done properly, the diminished value means drivers lose money when they go to sell the vehicle.
Bill Brown knew his almost-new SUV was worth thousands less as soon another driver plowed into it causing a lot of damage but not enough to write it off.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/ business/vehicles-insurance- accidents-diminished-value-1. 4675414
______________________________ ______________________________ ____
Drivers are having to dig deep into their pockets to cover soaring auto insurance rates in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and many have voiced deep unhappiness with the so-called ‘postal code discrimination’ system whereby insurers use geographic data to determine premiums.
______________________________ ______________________________ _____
Jurors Use of Internet to do Research on Trials is a Global Problem
Almost all of us have a super computer in our pockets and we have come to rely on them to give us answers to questions immediately on all kinds of topics from where gas is cheap to how to get something delivered free. Now however, it seems that jurors are seriously disrupting trials by using their phones to look for answers to their questions about the case they are deliberating.
______________________________ ______________________________ _____
Implementing Ontario’s accessibility law a priority for disability advocates
Even if the party that wins Thursday’s election heeds calls to improve the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Daigle will still struggle to get a front-row seat to the conversation. The visitors’ gallery remains inaccessible to wheelchairs and while five spots are available elsewhere, the distinction makes Daigle feel voices like hers are not as welcome in the province’s political discourse.
______________________________ ___________________________________________
(c) Adverse Costs Insurance
[
58]
The defendant points to the fact that the plaintiff purchased an adverse costs insurance policy, for a premium of $1,450, which provided coverage of up to $100,000 for “own disbursements and opponent’s costs and disbursements in lost or abandoned cases”. The defendants argue that the purchase of $100,000 of coverage should be a factor in determining whether the plaintiff’s claim for partial indemnity fees of $269,371 plus taxes is appropriate.
[
59]
In my view, the amount of adverse costs insurance purchased is irrelevant. Plaintiffs are not able to recover the cost of obtaining adverse costs insurance as an assessable disbursement:
Valentine v. Rodriguez-Elizalde, 2016 ONSC 6395 (CanLII) at paras. 70-71. Furthermore, I was advised by counsel that the maximum coverage available to the plaintiff was $100,000. Accordingly, neither the existence of this coverage nor the amount of coverage obtained have any bearing whatsoever upon an assessment or fixing of costs.
[
69]
Weighing these elements and the other factors discussed as best I can, without embarking upon a full scale assessment of the plaintiff’s fees, an appropriate downward adjustment to the plaintiff’s claim for $269,371 (plus H.S.T.) would be in the order of 30%, or $80,000.
[
70]
However, as I have also indicated, the defendant’s refusal to mediate is a relevant factor. That refusal was unreasonable. It deprived the parties of an opportunity to settle the case without the necessity for a trial.
[
71]
As a result, instead of adjusting the plaintiff’s claim for costs downward by $80,000, I have made the adjustment a little under $60,000 and have therefore concluded that an appropriate award of costs in this case is $210,000 plus applicable taxes.
