Tampilkan postingan dengan label IBC. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label IBC. Tampilkan semua postingan

Ontario’s Shame and Scandal – how the injured and disabled are punished by government policy



Victim’s group calls for the Auditor General and the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate what is happening to Ontario’s injured and disabled citizens


TORONTO, November 17, 2015 PRESS RELEASE - Ontario auto insurers are poised to make higher profits on the backs of Ontario’s disabled and injured MVA victims in 2016 while continuing to build up the provincial deficit by downloading the expense of victims to the taxpayers. Recently passed legislation means that coverage for the most injured MVA victims will be cut in half.


In October Ontario’s over 9 million drivers learned through the Lazar Prisman Report that they had been overcharged for auto insurance and likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone.


In recent weeks we learned just how challenging recovery is and how poorly the WSIB injured workers are treated in the Prescription Over-Ruled: Report on How Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Systematically Ignores the Advice of Medical Professionals.


How are these two stories related? Both systems are focused on their bottom line profits and their investments and not on recovery or the best interests of their clients. Both systems are based on medical evidence to support or deny claims; access to treatments and benefits relies on it. So what happens if those medical examinations aren’t reliable?


Ontario’s auto insurance companies have been delaying and denying their customer’s claims by way of poor quality or biased medical opinion reports in much the same way as is happening at the WSIB. Many of the same experts are employed under the two systems and those assessors who are auto insurers’ “preferred vendors” of these “independent” assessments are often beholden to the company that pays them. Similar to the WSIB assessment model where expectations are to be met or there are consequences.


Providing auto insurers’ with “favourable” medico-legal opinions by minimizing/trivializing legitimate injuries is unethical and it should be treated as a form of fraud. It is after all the mirror image of the type of fraud the FSCO, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the WSIB say they won’t tolerate.


The insurers’ assessment is the only component of our broken Ontario auto insurance regime that has escaped regulatory scrutiny. It is the corrupted insurer medico-legal (IME/IE) assessment system that stands between injured claimants and their access to the Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs).


The current legislation allows auto insurers to deny policy benefits (including treatment, income replacement, attendant care, etc.) to seriously injured auto victims solely on the basis of the opinions of these second opinion insurer assessments commissioned to question the validity of the diagnosis and prognosis of attending physicians and treatment providers.


No matter how many attending physicians attest to the legitimacy of an injury ultimately the insurer assessor’s opinion (even if unqualified or biased) trumps those of the attending physicians’ in terms of the injured claimant’s eligibility for treatment and benefits.


The legislative changes and cuts to coverage will find many untreated and injured MVA victims dumped onto our OHIP and public supports systems. Insurers have been taking advantage of the taxpayer who ends up paying the costs of car crash survivors through Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Insurers’ profits and WSIB books get balanced while victims end up impoverished and at the food bank.


Ontario’s injured and disabled individuals deserve better treatment at the hands of our government be they car crash survivors or WSIB claimants. They have the right to expect to have their medical conditions addressed through the recommendations of their treating physicians and providers who shouldn’t be second-guessed by “hired gun” insurer ‘experts’.


We ask that the Ontario Ombudsman look into the systemic abuse of Ontario’s victims and why the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and the Minister of Finance have failed to protect the interests and well-being of injured Ontarians with meaningful regulation and enforcement.


We ask the Auditor General to look into the reasons why the Minister of Finance (MOF) has not taken action on the Auditor General’s 2011 report recommendation that an update on the assessment of health system costs be done. These are the costs to the taxpayer through our medical systems that should be paid by Ontario’s insurers through a transfer of funds. Health care costs and the volume of MVA victims dependent on our social supports have increased substantially since the inception of No-Fault insurance. Yet the transfer of funds from Ontario's insurers to the province has not increased since 2006 before the majority of MVA victims have had their med/rehab claims capped at $3500.00 in 2010, down from $100,000.00 in previous years.


We would ask the Auditor General to go further and assess the cost of the public supports to unpaid MVA victims and WSIB claimants when they are downloaded to OW, ODSP and ultimately CPP Disability. Ontario’s insurers will slash benefits in half to $1 million for med/rehab/attendant care for the most catastrophically injured MVA victims in June of 2016. This will have far reaching costs to taxpayers who not only pay the highest auto insurance premiums in Canada but who are also going to have to pick up the majority of the costs of seriously injured MVA victims and provide additional services through OHIP.


Our auto insurance system is surely broken when insurers are so routinely using our courts as a tool to deny claims. According to StatCan there are over 61,000 auto insurance related cases waiting for hearings in Ontario civil court and over 19,000 more MVA victims at the Financial Services waiting for hearings. All of these delays and denials have a cost and insurers don’t seem to be the ones paying for it.


SOURCE FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform is a not-for-profit organization of MVA victims and their supporters. http://www.fairassociation.ca/

For further information: Media Contact: Rhona DesRoches, 705 543-0574, fairautoinsurance@gmail.com

THE TRUTH REVEALED ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANIES’ PROFITS IN ONTARIO



Dr. Fred Lazar and Dr. Eli Prisman have updated the 2013 report to include data for 2014. The update found that consumers likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840 million in 2013. In addition to overpaying for insurance, the report concluded that the total industrywide profits in 2014 alone were 10.6 per cent – or nearly twice the levels considered reasonable. To read more about auto insurance and to download a copy of the report, click the “Download The Report” icon on the right side of this page.....

More:

Hard road for car crash victims

Hard road for car crash victims

Why is the Ontario government taking away money they deserve and transferring it to the insurance industry?

How nice for the insurance industry. Take money from deserving accident victims and give it to insurance companies.
Instead of increasing the deductible the government ought to abolish it.
There’s no principled reason to apply a deductible....

More:
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/12/hard-road-for-car-crash-victims

 

Profits Soar for Ontario Auto Insurance Companies

Profits Soar for Ontario Auto Insurance Companies


The stated aim of the deductible is to eliminate “nuisance” cases from the system. But that is achieved by the threshold. The deductible is just another way to line the pockets of auto insurance companies. If the Ontario government sees the need to tie the deductible to inflation,why are no-fault accident benefits not tied to inflation?.......

Last week, an updated study from York University School of Business Professors Fred Lazar and Eli Prisman was released that reveals consumers likely overpaid $1.5 billion in the last two years for auto insurance. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840 million ($120 per policy) in 2013.....


More:



OTLA: Updated study shows Ontario auto insurance is "fundamentally broken"

OTLA: Updated study shows Ontario auto insurance is "fundamentally broken"

TORONTO, Oct. 15, 2015 /CNW/ - An updated study released today provides alarming new data on auto insurance in Ontario.
The study, conducted by York University Schulich School of Business Professors Fred Lazar and Eli Prisman, reveals that consumers likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840 million ($120 per policy) in 2013......

More:
http://news.morningstar.com/all/canada-news-wire/20151015C7206/otla-updated-study-shows-ontario-auto-insurance-is-fundamentally-broken.aspx
Ontarians pay more than double in car insurance

Ontarians pay more than double in car insurance

The price of car insurance is always a hot topic in this province. It costs Ontarians more than double to drive here, than anywhere else in Canada. New figures released today show rates have fallen marginally, less than 1%… and now an independent report found the auto insurance industry is raking in large government guaranteed profits. As Kate Carnegie reports, the liberals admitted today they have more work to do to lower the rates for drivers....

More:
http://www.chch.com/ontarians-pay-more-than-double-in-car-insurance/




Orillia woman involved in serious collision slams province’s planned changes to insurance industry

Orillia woman involved in serious collision slams province’s planned changes to insurance industry

Tammy Kirkwood said the province’s plan to reduce auto-insurance benefits that was passed as part of the budget earlier this year will severely hurt crash victims requiring extensive care....

More:
Car insurers and lawyers brawl in public

Car insurers and lawyers brawl in public

Two sides point to each other as reason for high insurance premiums. The truth is, they’re both responsible

By , Toronto Sun
First posted: | Updated: First posted: | Updated:

auto insurance cuts
Hundreds protest the Ontario government’s proposed auto insurance cuts outside Queen's Park in Toronto on June 3, 2015. (Dave Abel/Toronto Sun)
A slugging match recently erupted between car insurance companies and Ontario personal injury lawyers.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) opened by claiming the public needs regulatory oversight of contingency fees charged by personal injury lawyers.

The IBC feels a change is necessary to protect consumers and allow the government to evaluate the impact of lawyers’ fees on the auto insurance system.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) countered by releasing a study it commissioned concerning auto insurance premiums.

According to the study, prepared by two professors at York University’s Schulich School of Business, “consumers in Ontario may have overpaid for auto insurance by between $3 and $4 billion over the period 2001 to 2013.”
The OTLA urged an independent “thorough and truly transparent” review of auto insurance by Ontario’s Auditor General.

Reacting quickly, the IBC fired back through a press release, pointing the finger back at personal injury lawyers claiming, “lawyers’ fees are simply too high and have a significant impact on the cost of auto insurance.”

The IBC supported its conclusion by claiming some lawyers charge 40%, while others between 25% and 33% of any settlement or judgment.

I doubt many lawyers would dare charge a 40% contingency fee, although even a 25% to 33% fee may be too high in some cases.

But, the IBC forgot to mention clients don’t pay the entire contingency fee as a good part of the fee is paid by the insurance company.

To rub it in further, the IBC stated, “In 2013, lawyers received an estimated $500 million from injury claimants out of their insurance settlements for bodily injury claims. These are real dollars that never make it to the claimant. IBC will continue to fight for increased transparency so that consumers can actually see where their insurance dollars go.”

But I don’t think insurers want to open the transparency can of worms.
If they want to talk about “real dollars” that don’t make it to claimants, check out the vast sums paid by insurers for their so-called independent medical examinations (IMEs), used to belittle or deny claims.

According to the most recent Ontario Health Claims Database, insurance companies paid approximately $372 million for IMEs for accidents taking place in the last four years.

In some years, insurance companies forced almost half of all claimants to attend IMEs and in each year the average amount paid per assessed claimant for these exams exceeded the average amount paid per claimant for all medical and rehabilitation expenses.

Sending claimants for multiple and expensive assessments to pro-insurer experts is a major contributor to insurers’ costs and takes “real dollars” out of the pockets of claimants.

That’s not to say lawyers are free of blame.

There’s a long history of lawyers neglecting to act diligently to expose insurer experts who file partisan reports, sometimes outside their sphere of expertise, used by insurers to delay and deny claims.

As well, quality control at some law firms is substandard.

The FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform has recently posted an announcement stating, “ALERT – we are hearing about more and more cases where time limitations for filing have lapsed due to plaintiff’s legal representatives failing to meet limitation period deadlines.”
Then again, motor vehicle litigation and accident benefits claims are highly complex and insurance company tactics often lead to increased fees.

And if the insurance industry wants to point fingers at personal injury lawyers, perhaps they ought to make complete disclosure of the money they spend on defence lawyers and adjusters to deny, delay and defend claims.

Furthermore, how much do insurers pay to fund their massive public relations campaigns -- including political contributions to those in power -- which they effectively use to portray accident victims as opportunistic, malingering or just plain fraudulent?

It seems there is a lot of mud that can be thrown at each side in this messy debate.

But while the debate drags on, insurers continue to exact high premiums and lawyers receive handsome payments for their work.
And accident victims? They’re stuck in the middle.

Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/13/car-insurers-and-lawyers-brawl-in-public

Wondering what Insurance Company CEOs make in a year?

Wondering what Insurance Company CEOs make in a year?

It's a heck of a lot more than the $400/wk accident victims are expected to live on!

56 year old Executive Profile Donald A. Guloien- Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, ManulifeFinancial Corporation


 C$14,484,208 As of Fiscal Year 2014


COMPETITOR COMPENSATION

Name Position/
Company
Compensation
Thomas J. Wilson II Chairman of The Board, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of Allstate Insurance Company, Chief Executive Officer of Allstate Insurance Company, Director of Allstate Insurance Company and Chairman of Executive Committee
The Allstate Corporation
$1.1M
Jay S. Fishman Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of Executive Committee and Member of Operating Committee
The Travelers Companies, Inc.
$1.0M
Paul A. Mahon Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Member of Executive Committee
Great-West Lifeco Inc.
C$964.2K
Mark Andrew Wilson Group Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director
Aviva plc
2.3M GBP
John Robert Strangfeld Jr. Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
Prudential Financial, Inc.
$1.4M
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2014.
 
Source/ more: http://www.bloomberg.com/Research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=510859&ticker=MFC:CN&previousCapId=319616&previousTitle=The%20DeWolfe%20Companies%2C%20Inc.