In Ontario, the Wild West of fundraising, Liberal cabinet ministers are assigned secret targets as high as $500,000 a year, the Star has learned.

• A review of the major reductions to statutory accident benefits and the applicable transitional rules;
• A discussion on the new License Appeal Tribunal (replacing FSCO as of April 1, 2016) and the elimination of the right to sue in Court for accident benefits disputes;
• A review of the narrower definition of “catastrophic impairment”; and,
• Solutions to helping accident victims in keeping with these changes.

The recent 1.5 per cent increase in social assistance by the Ontario government for Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program recipients is totally unacceptable and is a slap in the face to these people who are forced, not by choice, to live in ghettos across the province of Ontario.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2016/03/24/two-takes-on-basic-income.html

“There are a number of logistical challenges,” said Dianne Craig, Ford Canada’s president.
Craig says that insurance companies have to delineate what coverage passengers in self-driving vehicles would need. Also governments would need to tackle laws that address what Craig calls “autonomous” vehicles.

http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/who-is-liable-for-insurance-in-a-driverless-car-205023.aspx

If you have ever had to dispute a decision related to accident benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), you probably dealt with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).  Since 1997, FSCO’s Dispute Resolution Service has served as the adjudicator for disputes between injured citizens and insurance companies.

http://www.vandykelaw.ca/2016/03/changes-ahead-for-accident-benefits-dispute-resolution/

The updated “So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-Off” is now available.
This 360-page edition has been completely revamped to include a researched exposé of 120 extra pages that expose how auto insurers, the WSIB and disability insurers deny medical, rehab and income replacement benefits to legitimate claimants. Nearly one out of two claimants is denied. It doesn’t matter if a person is seriously injured or not. The catastrophically injured also need to fight to receive the CAT benefits available in their policies – benefits that the Wynne government has cut in half commencing June 1.

http://deniedbenefitclaims.com/blog.html

In Dominion v. State Farm, the claimant was a passenger in a State Farm vehicle when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He claimed accident benefits from Dominion.

http://www.insblogs.com/auto/onsc-excluded-driver-not-listed-driver-sabs-coverage/6552

As a litigation accountant, one may review and quantify several life care plans each week, both for plaintiff and defense counsel.  On occasion, comparisons between reports are completed, using a ‘compare and contrast’ or ‘exception’ approach.  The calculations may appear simple; present valuing the costs using actuarial estimates, taking into account discount rates, mortality and inflation.  However, there are many issues to consider when reviewing these costs of care reports.  It is prudent to see the overall conceptual issues, rather than merely inputting the individual values.

http://www.collinsbarrow.com/en/cbn/publications/issues-to-consider-when-reviewing-costs-of-care-claims?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original