Beale, who will address the Financial Times Future of Insurance Conference on the topic next week, cites technologies from new players like Google and Walmart in her warning of disruptive changes to the industry and its role of managing risk – a process she calls “Uber”izing.
http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/insurance-could-be-uberized-warns-lloyds-chief-192957.aspx
Here’s a little something Ontario Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins might want to keep in mind: No matter how many times you rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, our health-care system is about to hit a gigantic iceberg, and the Good Ship OHIP is going to sink sooner rather than later.
http://www.lfpress.com/2015/07/03/health-care-on-its-death-bed
This notice provides an overview of the private passenger automobile insurance rate changes approved or ordered by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for filings reviewed in the first quarter of 2015. The number of filings reviewed by FSCO and the overall average rate change for the Ontario market may vary from quarter to quarter, based on updated information about claims costs, market conditions and other financial factors and the resulting impact that these factors have on the adequacy of an insurance company’s current rates.
Desjardins General Insurance Group Inc. announced Monday its mobile app for usage-based auto insurance is now available on the Apple Inc.’s recently-launched computerized wristwatch.
“From a cyclist’s perspective, the important question is: ‘What happens when I’m hurt if I’m involved in a car accident and I have damage to my bicycle?’ ” said Natalie Dupuis, senior product manager with RBC Insurance.
http://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/07/03/being-covered-who-pays-in-bike-car-collisions.html
AdvocateDaily.com provides original content for its member legal professionals to place on their websites for prospective clients and opposing counsel to view when researching them online, positioning them as leaders in their areas of law. Meanwhile, appearing on AdvocateDaily.com regularly can result in industry referrals from our growing legal audience.
FAIR submission to Minister of Finance regarding SABS June 2015
We ask that our government push the pause button on the proposed changes and review the information that has recently been put in front of them in regards to insurer profits. There needs to be better information about victim recovery post the 2010 reductions and whether Ontario‟s insurers deserved to get those reductions in 2010 and profit billions on the backs of the injured. It may be the time to review whether Ontario should continue with the present private industry No-Fault coverage going forward. It isn‟t working for victims and they are the half of the equation that counts and the half that is being left without the resources and tools for recovery. We will undoubtedly see fellow Ontarians whose horrific crashes result in quadriplegia, severe brain injuries and amputations live the rest of their lives with little to no dignity. The impact of choosing between help to complete daily activities and rehabilitation to reduce the need for help in the future is magnified tenfold in this population. The future of these individuals’ children, wives, husbands or parents will be forever changed as they have to rededicate their lives to becoming full time caregivers in light of deep cuts to the benefits. We urge decision makers to spend a day with a catastrophically injured individual in order to understand the impact of the proposed cuts. We have also heard government officials suggest that Ontario’s costs are out of control compared to other provinces. Again, this is a very misleading statement. For example, here in Ontario, insurers rely heavily on the abusive practice of subjecting as many as 50 per cent of all injured accident victims to excessive medical assessments for the purpose of denying their claims. It is not at all uncommon for those assessment costs to vastly outstrip the actual treatment dollars. To add insult to injury, insurance companies count all these assessments broadly as “treatment” and then complain that our overall treatment costs are high, and that Ontario victims are more needy than people elsewhere. Government’s stated intentions vs unintended consequences The government has stated that it intends to “Update the definition of catastrophic impairment (CAT) to reflect the most up to date medical information and knowledge”. While it is reasonable to strive to incorporate relevant new medical information, “updating” must provide real improvement rather than incorporating newer, but more flawed and discriminatory methods.To: The Legislative Assembly of Ontario
Where the Ontario Regulation 347/13 makes four changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) should be removed, as it puts at risk the well-being of individuals jeopardizing their optimal recovery, health, and lifestyle.
We the Undersigned Petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as Follows:
Ontario Regulation 347/13 has made four changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), also known as Ontario Regulation 34/10 effective Feb 1, 2014. These regulations have considerably reduced the dollar amounts allocated for patients receiving assessments and treatment following a motor vehicle accident. Implementation of Section 18 (1) and Section 18 (2); The Minor Injury Guideline in the new Ontario Legislation for Accident Benefits Coverage, which came into effect September 1, 2010 was a direct result of recommendations made by the Insurance Industry, while recommendations made by the Ontario Chiropractic Association and Canadian Society of Chiropractic Evaluators was disregarded.
Since its introduction to Ontario’s accident benefit regime in September 2010, the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”) has remained one of the most significant barriers for motor vehicle accident victims to obtain sufficient medical and rehabilitation coverage for their injuries. In practice, the impact of the MIG was to create a presumptive medical threshold against injured victims based on vaguely defined criteria in the MIG, and those who fell within this threshold would be subject to a $3,500 benefit limit, down from the non-MIG limit of $50,000 for med/rehab benefits.
http://www.judithhull.com/appeal-preserves-the-debilitating-mig-definition/
Scarlett v Belair Insurance, 2015 ONSC 3635 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gjfpn>
Imagine going for surgery without the doctor telling you where they will be cutting. That would be unthinkable. Similarly, why should the client allow the lawyer to proceed without knowing what was being done?