One of the major concerns held by many is that the data collected could be used against drivers down the road. If, for instance, the police come knocking on the insurance company’s door bearing a warrant, they will gain access to a client’s data.
http://www.liveinsurancenews.com/black-box-lower-insurance-rates/8530374/
In my view, the OTLA report card is missing two important subjects in which the insurance industry deserves an A+. Those are public relations and delay and deny tactics.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/02/rating-automobile-insurance-coverage
The government is refusing to give details on the success or failure of accessibility standards for the disabled.
‘Your whole life changes’ – this is what Premier Wynne and Minister Sousa need to read BEFORE agreeing to reduce coverage for catastrophic impairments – it happens in an instant – and it could be you.
A perspective on referrals, ethical practices and fees
Most plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyers detest FSCO arbitrations and avoid them whenever possible. The cumbersome arbitration process makes it impossible to quickly and economically arbitrate any day-to-day treatment denials. There’s simply no way to arbitrate a treatment denial and get a timely result and, even if that was possible, the cost of arbitrating would greatly exceed the amount in dispute even after considering the modest FSCO cost contribution consequences.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201310283550/headline-news/fsco-must-now-tackle-arbitration-delays
The number of people who cannot afford a lawyer, and who are forced to represent themselves in important legal proceedings has ballooned in the last 10 years. Chief among the reasons for this development is the cost of litigation. Even people of ordinary means can no longer afford to pay a lawyer to see a case through to the end.” We need to examine each area of the law to determine options for reform with the goal of providing better access to justice and reducing the role of lawyers. For example, why do so many accident victims require a lawyer to assist with the collection of no-fault accident benefits? How can we modify the law so that insurance companies will have to provide contractually required benefits without forcing accident victims to retain a lawyer?
Revising the cat definition – the definition is still fundamentally based on principles using technology from the 1970s, he said, noting that a government-commissioned report has already been completed by an independent body; Adjusting interest rates on the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – the rate should be in line with others, perhaps something like 1.5% to 2% annually, rather than a rate compounded monthly; Stablizing minor injury guideline reform – the guidelines need to be binding to help ensure that people are dealt with in a timely and efficient manner; Reducing treatment costs – individuals in Ontario can receive treatment for 10 years, considerably longer than in some other provinces; Reforming the arbitration process; and Replacing the bodily injury verbal threshold – the hope is that will allow for actual settlements and, perhaps, settlements at smaller amounts.
“Some people are going to be annoyed. My point is I don’t really care who’s annoyed if Ontarians benefit. So government’s got to step up and have the courage to force these things through. Otherwise, we’re not going to get there,” Tulloch cautioned.
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/industry-must-make-it-clear-to-consumers-that-15-auto-premium-reduction-is-an-average-ceo-says/1002678216/
Insurance companies seem prepared to make any argument to limit the number of victims who qualify for catastrophic benefits. At least that appears to be the case from the recently reported arbitration decision involving a 53-year-old woman, D.B., (the decision doesn’t reveal the victim’s name) and her insurance company, Economical Mutual. The insurer’s expert also took the bizarre view D.B. ought to have her right leg amputated below the knee and that she’d then no longer require a wheelchair.