I'm away at the Jersey shore and won't be posting again until January 7th. I will likely still be using my Twitter account. Wishing everyone a happy and prosperous New Year and a some NHL hockey.
Willie
Jumat, 28 Desember 2012
Happy New Year!
I'm away at the Jersey shore and won't be posting again until January 7th. I will likely still be using my Twitter account. Wishing everyone a happy and prosperous New Year and a some NHL hockey.
Willie
Kamis, 27 Desember 2012
Insurance News - Thursday, December 27, 2012
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, December 27 2012:
- New Alabama law and online insurance verification system targets uninsured drivers starting Jan 1.
- EU gender price ban raising insurance costs for women but not giving men corresponding lower rates.
- Progressive Insurance in the U.S. reports a 30% increase in single vehicle claims on New Year’s Day.
- Police across the country struggle as Twitter users reveal impaired driving checkstops.
- Progressive Insurance releases terms for usage-based insurance licensing program.
Kamis, 20 Desember 2012
Insurance News - Thursday, December 20, 2012
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, December 20 2012:
- Supreme Court won’t hear appeal of Deering sisters car crash case.
- Letter to the Editor: Independent medical examinations provide "necessary check and balance."
- Insurance companies among top GTA employers on CI Top Broker.
- Insurance safety group releases car ratings based on new crash test.
- Sudy shows that traffic accidents are the leading cause of high-severity workers’ comp injuries.
- A look at new US insurance laws taking effect in 2013.
CCIR Report On Credit Scoring Is Inconclusive
The Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR) Credit Scoring Working Group released its Findings Report: Use of Credit Scores By Insurers in late November 2012. Unfortunately, the report has little new to offer despite spending a considerable amount of time looking at the issue.
The working was established in 2009 to gather the facts surrounding credit‐based insurance scores and how they are used in today’s regulatory environment. Public consultation was undertaken in 2011. That process turned out to be a disappointment as only 15 submissions were received and all from either the insurance sector or credit bureaus.
No feedback was received from consumers. That is not surprising because insurance consumers are not really organized. There are consumer groups, such as the Consumers Association of Canada, but their scope of issues are so broad and their resources so stretched that it is unlikely that you would ever get them to respond to these types of consultation. That is why organizations tend to rely on marketing research firms to reach out to consumers.
The report itself highlights what we already know about this issue, insurers and brokers are on different sides of the debate on the use of credit scores. The report acknowledges the IBC Code of Conduct for Insurers’ Use of Credit Information. However, it notes that not all insurers are members of IBC and not even all IBC members have “signed on” to the Code, which makes it difficult to consider this code an industry standard.
As well, since few regulators have authority (outside of automobile insurance) to reject underwriting criteria, the decisions on which, if any, actions to take on the use of credit scoring for underwriting rest with the policymakers in the various provincial and territorial governments.
So we are essentially in the same spot we were in 2009.
The working was established in 2009 to gather the facts surrounding credit‐based insurance scores and how they are used in today’s regulatory environment. Public consultation was undertaken in 2011. That process turned out to be a disappointment as only 15 submissions were received and all from either the insurance sector or credit bureaus.
No feedback was received from consumers. That is not surprising because insurance consumers are not really organized. There are consumer groups, such as the Consumers Association of Canada, but their scope of issues are so broad and their resources so stretched that it is unlikely that you would ever get them to respond to these types of consultation. That is why organizations tend to rely on marketing research firms to reach out to consumers.
The report itself highlights what we already know about this issue, insurers and brokers are on different sides of the debate on the use of credit scores. The report acknowledges the IBC Code of Conduct for Insurers’ Use of Credit Information. However, it notes that not all insurers are members of IBC and not even all IBC members have “signed on” to the Code, which makes it difficult to consider this code an industry standard.
As well, since few regulators have authority (outside of automobile insurance) to reject underwriting criteria, the decisions on which, if any, actions to take on the use of credit scoring for underwriting rest with the policymakers in the various provincial and territorial governments.
So we are essentially in the same spot we were in 2009.
Selasa, 18 Desember 2012
Insurance News - Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Tuesday, December 18, 2012:
- Windsor motorists corral driver who blew three times legal limit.
- Many Ontario drivers are not taking all the precautions they can to stay safe and keep calm on the roads in winter.
- Progressive Conservatives want Ontario to be a 'right-to-work' province.
- Strategy Meets Action (SMA), an insurance strategic advisory firm, released its new research report, Usage-Based Insurance/Telematics: a Catalyst for Change.
- As of Jan. 1, 2013, driver's licences and photo cards will now be clearly labeled as to whether the cardholder is of age.
- Are GTA auto premiums set to fall? Co-operators have dropped rates, will anyone follow them?
- 9 suspects have been arrested. 41 charges laid. A significant impact in stopping staged collisions in York Region.
Senin, 17 Desember 2012
Online Car Insurance Guide
Car Insurance provides financial protection against physical damage and/or bodily injury resulting from natural or man made calamities and against liability that could also arise there from. The cover level of car insurance can be the insured party, the insured vehicle and third parties.
Need for Car Insurance
Car insurance is a smart planning to protect the people and investments made into the car. Car insurance is must due to following reasons:
- Protects The Investment Made In Car: Car Insurance protects the investment made into a car, no matter it is a new car or older one. Cars are the second most expensive investment, after homes. Cars have much more chances of getting damaged as these are always moving about. One accident would turn the investment into a huge loss. Car insurance covers the cost of car repair due to damage caused by an accident.
- Financial Support After Accidents: Car Insurance also covers the medical bills incurred due to accident. Hence provides the financial support after the accidents.
- Beneficial For Survivors: Car Insurance also provides benefits to survivors when an accident results in death.
- State Law: Car Insurance includes lawsuits, including legal fees brought against you as the result of an accident. In some states it is compulsory to have car insurance of some minimum amount to minimize the overall impact of property loss. Car insurance is must for car registration in some states.
- Beneficial Against Theft, Vandalism or Natural Disasters: Car Insurance also covers the damage caused by accident like theft and natural disasters. It also provides added advantage to extend coverage to others driving your car.
Choosing the RIGHT Car Insurance for YOU
How to choose the car insurance is a big question. One should always take care of the following factors and then can go for the suitable insurance. These days online car insurance is available which is comparatively cheap and is very convenient as well.
- State Law: Many states require that you purchase liability insurance. Liability insurance pays for bodily injury and property damage that you cause another driver. It also pays for your medical expenses and lost wages in the case of accident. Minimum insurance is determined by state law.
- Type of Car: Car type is one of the biggest factor to choose an insurance. If you have a brand new car or an expensive one then you should go for insurance against collisions. Otherwise one collision can ruin your hard earned money.
- Hidden Fees: Many insurance companies charges huge amount of hidden charges. So one should have knowledge of these charges before he/she opts for a insurance company. One should always go with company with less hidden charges so that his/her insurance could be cheap.
- Convenience Charges: A good insurance company always keep the things easy for its customers. You should choose a company which charges minimum and also provides good services.
- According To Budget: One should always choose car insurance according to his/ her budget so that one should be able to pay premium easily. But minimum insurance premium may also be dangerous in case of valuable assets or expensive assets. So one should choose plan accordingly.
- Credit Rating: People with poor rating files more claims. Insurance companies are aware of it. If one is having good credit rating, he/she can request his/her insurance company to have a look at it and can adjust premium accordingly. But one should not do it until he/she is sure about credit rating otherwise premium may go higher. But good thing is insurance company can’t do this mid-term unless one asks for this.
- Major Players: One should always take care of what the person is already paying and what offers are available in the market. What discounts and special offers one could get. One should always think how much he is ready to gamble. Depending upon these one should choose the insurance.
Major Players for Car Insurance
Compare Car Insurance – Quotes for CHEAP CAR INSURANCE
http://www.gocompare.com/
http://www.easyinsuranceindia.com/
Minggu, 16 Desember 2012
Update on Florida No-Fault Auto Insurance Reforms
Another jurisdiction to experience serious auto insurance fraud problems is Florida. In March of this year HB 119 passed in the State Senate and House after some heavy duty lobbying by Gov. Rick Scott.
The new Florida personal injury protection (PIP) law was adopted in 1972 to make sure anyone injured in an auto accident would quickly get money to treat their injuries. The legislation provided that a driver’s insurance company pay up to $10,000 to cover medical bills and lost wages after an accident, no matter who is at fault.
PIP costs have risen by $1.4 billion since 2008, largely because of the runaway fraud that threatens the system, most notably in the metropolitan Miami and Tampa areas. Florida ranks first nationally in staged accidents.
The legislation requires an accident victim to obtain treatment within 14 days in an ambulance or hospital, or from a physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, or dentist. The full $10,000 PIP medical benefit is available only if a physician, osteopathic physician, dentist, or a supervised physician’s assistant or advanced registered nurse practitioner determines that the insured has an “emergency medical condition.” Otherwise, the PIP medical benefit is limited to $2,500.
Follow-up services and care requires a referral from a physician, osteopath, chiropractor or dentist. Massage therapists and acupuncture was eliminated from eligibility for PIP benefits.
Another provision in the bill requires the Office of Insurance Regulation to hire an independent consultant by September to calculate the savings expected from the Act.
The bill includes a 10 percent rate reduction on PIP that’s not guaranteed. If insurers who offer PIP do not provide their customers a minimum 10 percent rate reduction by October 1, 2012, they must explain in detail why not. A second rate filing required on Jan. 1, 2013, proposes insurers have a 25 percent premium reduction for policyholders unless they can show why they’re unable to provide the cut.
Of the 44 rate filings that were approved by the state's Office of Insurance Regulation by mid-November, the average PIP savings has been 2.5 percent. That reflects about a fourth of the 141 filings from companies selling all types of car insurance, with the rest still under review. As of December 13, 2012, there were 98 filings approved.
Florida regulators are optimistic that the state’s no-fault auto reforms are having a positive effect on the market and will eventually cut premiums for drivers. But for now they are telling the public that the recent law changes will likely only temper the size of insurers’ PIP rate requests as opposed to actually decreasing drivers’ premiums.
Regulators expect that the January 1, 2013 filings will represent a fuller picture of the influence of the reforms on the market.
Insurers have been reluctant to make deep cuts in their PIP rates because they want to see whether the law can withstand legal challenges. A group of health care providers filed suit in Leon County Circuit Court arguing the law is unconstitutional. The case centers on a decision by lawmakers to eliminate licensed massage therapists and acupuncturists from the list of approved PIP providers while setting a medical fee schedule based on Medicaid. In addition, the $2,500 benefit limit for non-emergency services will result substantially decrease chiropractor fees. Those three categories of providers represented the three highest average medical fees per PIP patient.
The first challenge of Florida’s reform to its personal injury protection system has failed with a denial of an injunction last week that would have stopped the law’s implementation. This is just a short-term procedural victory and the case will now proceed to trial.
The new Florida personal injury protection (PIP) law was adopted in 1972 to make sure anyone injured in an auto accident would quickly get money to treat their injuries. The legislation provided that a driver’s insurance company pay up to $10,000 to cover medical bills and lost wages after an accident, no matter who is at fault.
PIP costs have risen by $1.4 billion since 2008, largely because of the runaway fraud that threatens the system, most notably in the metropolitan Miami and Tampa areas. Florida ranks first nationally in staged accidents.
The legislation requires an accident victim to obtain treatment within 14 days in an ambulance or hospital, or from a physician, osteopathic physician, chiropractic physician, or dentist. The full $10,000 PIP medical benefit is available only if a physician, osteopathic physician, dentist, or a supervised physician’s assistant or advanced registered nurse practitioner determines that the insured has an “emergency medical condition.” Otherwise, the PIP medical benefit is limited to $2,500.
Follow-up services and care requires a referral from a physician, osteopath, chiropractor or dentist. Massage therapists and acupuncture was eliminated from eligibility for PIP benefits.
Another provision in the bill requires the Office of Insurance Regulation to hire an independent consultant by September to calculate the savings expected from the Act.
The bill includes a 10 percent rate reduction on PIP that’s not guaranteed. If insurers who offer PIP do not provide their customers a minimum 10 percent rate reduction by October 1, 2012, they must explain in detail why not. A second rate filing required on Jan. 1, 2013, proposes insurers have a 25 percent premium reduction for policyholders unless they can show why they’re unable to provide the cut.
Of the 44 rate filings that were approved by the state's Office of Insurance Regulation by mid-November, the average PIP savings has been 2.5 percent. That reflects about a fourth of the 141 filings from companies selling all types of car insurance, with the rest still under review. As of December 13, 2012, there were 98 filings approved.
Florida regulators are optimistic that the state’s no-fault auto reforms are having a positive effect on the market and will eventually cut premiums for drivers. But for now they are telling the public that the recent law changes will likely only temper the size of insurers’ PIP rate requests as opposed to actually decreasing drivers’ premiums.
Regulators expect that the January 1, 2013 filings will represent a fuller picture of the influence of the reforms on the market.
Insurers have been reluctant to make deep cuts in their PIP rates because they want to see whether the law can withstand legal challenges. A group of health care providers filed suit in Leon County Circuit Court arguing the law is unconstitutional. The case centers on a decision by lawmakers to eliminate licensed massage therapists and acupuncturists from the list of approved PIP providers while setting a medical fee schedule based on Medicaid. In addition, the $2,500 benefit limit for non-emergency services will result substantially decrease chiropractor fees. Those three categories of providers represented the three highest average medical fees per PIP patient.
The first challenge of Florida’s reform to its personal injury protection system has failed with a denial of an injunction last week that would have stopped the law’s implementation. This is just a short-term procedural victory and the case will now proceed to trial.
Jumat, 14 Desember 2012
Insurance News - Friday, December 14, 2012
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Friday, December 14, 2012:
- Starting this weekend, harsher penalities for drunk driving in Manitoba including requiring offenders to pay to install an ignition interlock device in their car.
- Why Ontario has a strong economic case for seceding from Canada.
- Ohio minimum car insurance to jump to $25,000 (from $7,500) under bill waiting governor's signature.
- Starting Dec. 21, insurance companies in the European Union won't be able to use gender as a factor when they calculate rates for auto insurance.
Kamis, 13 Desember 2012
IBC Releases Annual List of the 10 Most Stolen Cars
The IBC's annual list of the most popular cars is out. Except the list isn't gauging consumer popularity, it's with thieves.
This year's hot target is the 2000 two-door Honda Civic Sir. Number two on the list is the 1999 two-door Honda Civic Sir.
The Civic replaces the 2009 Toyota Venza 4-door which was on the top of the IBC's list in 2011.
The list includes seven 4-wheel drive or all-wheel drive vehicles, including four Ford F350 trucks. The IBC reports that many of these higher-end vehicles are targeted by organized crime for shipment overseas. There were 82,411 vehicles stolen in Canada during 2011.
The top 10 most frequently stolen vehicles in Canada are:
This year's hot target is the 2000 two-door Honda Civic Sir. Number two on the list is the 1999 two-door Honda Civic Sir.
The Civic replaces the 2009 Toyota Venza 4-door which was on the top of the IBC's list in 2011.
The list includes seven 4-wheel drive or all-wheel drive vehicles, including four Ford F350 trucks. The IBC reports that many of these higher-end vehicles are targeted by organized crime for shipment overseas. There were 82,411 vehicles stolen in Canada during 2011.
The top 10 most frequently stolen vehicles in Canada are:
- 2000 HONDA CIVIC SiR 2DR
- 1999 HONDA CIVIC SiR 2DR
- 2006 CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER SS 4DR 4WD
- 2007 FORD F350 SD 4WD PU
- 2005 CADILLAC ESCALADE 4DR AWD
- 2006 FORD F350 SD 4WD PU
- 2002 CADILLAC ESCALADE 4DR 4WD
- 2005 FORD F350 SD 4WD PU
- 2004 FORD F350 SD 4WD PU
- 1999 ACURA INTEGRA 2DR
Rabu, 12 Desember 2012
Insurance News - Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Wednesday, December 12, 2012:
- FSCO has released an auto insurance bulletin -- 2013 Indexation Percentages under SABS.
- An Ontario court has held that an auto insurer and home insurer are obliged to defend in an action for personal injury because of the potential for concurrent liability.
- An Ontario Court of Appeal decision finding the FSCO failed to mediate a number of accident claims within a 60-day time limit could mean up to $300 million in costs that insurance companies will pass on through premiums, a lawyer estimates.
- $1.4-billion in unpaid corporate taxes being written off in Ontario: Auditor-General.
Senin, 10 Desember 2012
Insurance News - Monday, December 10, 2012
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, December 10, 2012:
- An advocacy group representing auto accident victims is objecting to some of the recommendations in the recently released report of the Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force.
- A California IT company is launching an auto insurance company selling policies based on distance driven for people who drive much.
- Businesses including insurers need to thinking about how they will be impacted by driverless cars. Are you ready for the 21st century?
Selasa, 04 Desember 2012
Appeals Court Confirms Mediations Are Deemed Failed If No Mediator Assigned After 60 Days
Last week a decision was released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Hurst v.Aviva Insurance Company (2012 ONCA 837), which upheld the lower court decision that Applications for Mediation received by FSCO that have not been mediated within 60 days are deemed failed. The lower court ruled that in cases where mediation has been deemed to fail because of the timeline, a mediator's report is not required for an insured to commence litigation.
The decision involves a number of insureds who wanted to begin litigation without a mediator's report indicating that mediation has failed. In each case their Applications for Mediation had been filed at FSCO and the 60-day limitation period had lapsed because of the siginificant backlog of mediation applications.
The insurers involved in the case argued in court that mediation had not failed because the 60-day limitation didn’t apply in these situations, in line with FSCO’s view.
FSCO has always taken the position that the time limit does not start until an Application for Mediation had been marked as "complete". This technicality has allowed a backlog of cases to build up. Early this year the backlog was estimated to be approximately 36,000 although it has since likely dropped down to under 20,000.
A lower court judge dismissed those motions by the insurers, who appealed to the Court of Appeal and ultimately led to last week's decision.
FSCO's arbitrators have ruled similarly. On February 10, 2012, in Leone and State Farm, a FSCO arbitrator ruled that mediation was deemed to have failed because it did not take place within 60 days of an application being filed and that the parties could not extend the time limit on consent once 60 days had expired. On July 31, 2012, a decision was released by the director’s delegate that upheld the 60-day deemed failure.
Section 281(2) of the Insurance Act prevents insureds from initiating any action against their insurer unless they first sought mediation at FSCO. Section 280(4) requires the mediations to be conducted within the "prescribed time". Section 280(7) states that mediations have failed when the mediator has given notice to the parties that the mediation will fail or when the prescribed or agreed time for mediation has expired and no settlement has been reached. Section 10 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code prescribes the time to be 60 days.
So what does this mean for insureds, insurers and FSCO?
Decisions regarding the 60-day limitations have been consistent - mediation is deemed to have failed once the timeline has expired. In addition, a mediator's report is not needed to move on to arbitration or litigation. That means that thousands of backlogged mediation cases are deemed failed and free to file for arbitration or go to court. The quickest route might be small claims court which is an option for many insureds with smaller claims.
FSCO has closed almost 8,000 mediation files as failed in the first nine months of 2012. However, it appears that the files may all have been failed with the agreement of the parties. The recent decision will likely make the number of failed mediations once again increase considerably. It may also require additional resources to handle the increase in arbitration files. They has partially been addressed by the contract with ADR Chambers. However, the limit of 500 files in the contract may not be sufficient. The current wait times in arbitration are six to eight months and will likely worsen. The alternative approach may not be any better. A large number of cases going to the courts will flood that system too.
As for insurers, the large number of files leaving the mediation system will likely increase their operating costs. Each application costs an insurer $3,000 and that does not include legal and preparation time in the event the application proceeds to a pre-hearing or hearing.
The decision involves a number of insureds who wanted to begin litigation without a mediator's report indicating that mediation has failed. In each case their Applications for Mediation had been filed at FSCO and the 60-day limitation period had lapsed because of the siginificant backlog of mediation applications.
The insurers involved in the case argued in court that mediation had not failed because the 60-day limitation didn’t apply in these situations, in line with FSCO’s view.
FSCO has always taken the position that the time limit does not start until an Application for Mediation had been marked as "complete". This technicality has allowed a backlog of cases to build up. Early this year the backlog was estimated to be approximately 36,000 although it has since likely dropped down to under 20,000.
A lower court judge dismissed those motions by the insurers, who appealed to the Court of Appeal and ultimately led to last week's decision.
FSCO's arbitrators have ruled similarly. On February 10, 2012, in Leone and State Farm, a FSCO arbitrator ruled that mediation was deemed to have failed because it did not take place within 60 days of an application being filed and that the parties could not extend the time limit on consent once 60 days had expired. On July 31, 2012, a decision was released by the director’s delegate that upheld the 60-day deemed failure.
Section 281(2) of the Insurance Act prevents insureds from initiating any action against their insurer unless they first sought mediation at FSCO. Section 280(4) requires the mediations to be conducted within the "prescribed time". Section 280(7) states that mediations have failed when the mediator has given notice to the parties that the mediation will fail or when the prescribed or agreed time for mediation has expired and no settlement has been reached. Section 10 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code prescribes the time to be 60 days.
So what does this mean for insureds, insurers and FSCO?
Decisions regarding the 60-day limitations have been consistent - mediation is deemed to have failed once the timeline has expired. In addition, a mediator's report is not needed to move on to arbitration or litigation. That means that thousands of backlogged mediation cases are deemed failed and free to file for arbitration or go to court. The quickest route might be small claims court which is an option for many insureds with smaller claims.
FSCO has closed almost 8,000 mediation files as failed in the first nine months of 2012. However, it appears that the files may all have been failed with the agreement of the parties. The recent decision will likely make the number of failed mediations once again increase considerably. It may also require additional resources to handle the increase in arbitration files. They has partially been addressed by the contract with ADR Chambers. However, the limit of 500 files in the contract may not be sufficient. The current wait times in arbitration are six to eight months and will likely worsen. The alternative approach may not be any better. A large number of cases going to the courts will flood that system too.
FSCO is informing parties who filed applications for mediation with FSCO more than 60 days ago should submit a form to FSCO indicating that they either jointly agree to extend the time for mediation or that either party wishes to receive a failed Report of Mediator. If FSCO does not receive this form from parties, by default, their applications will remain in queue for assignment to a mediator.
Applications for Arbitration that were filed without a Report of Mediator and have been held in abeyance, pending the Court of Appeal matters, will proceed to arbitration. Upon request, FSCO will issue Reports of Mediator for these cases.
As for insurers, the large number of files leaving the mediation system will likely increase their operating costs. Each application costs an insurer $3,000 and that does not include legal and preparation time in the event the application proceeds to a pre-hearing or hearing.
Rabu, 28 November 2012
Is Self-Regulation Realistic, For The Ontario Towing Industry?
The recently released report of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force recommends province-wide regulation of the towing industry, which has strong support from the insurance industry. The Task Force would like to see a province-wide licensing scheme administered by an Administrative Authority (AA).
There have been a number of attempts to review and/or regulate the cost of towing and storage of vehicles in Ontario over the past decade, several of which I had some involvement. In 2003, the government attempted to introduce a $300 cap on towing and storage costs through a revision to the Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP 1) but that was abandoned out of concern that consumers would be responsible for any excess charges.
In 2004, the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) formed a working group with representatives from the government, insurance industry, police forces and towing industry to address some of the abuse reported by consumers and insurers. There was no consensus coming out of the working group and it was eventually abandoned.
On June, 4, 2008, MPP David Zimmer introduced Bill 87 which would have provided for the self-regulation of the towing industry in Ontario. The bill never proceeded beyond second reading. David Zimmer reintroduced the bill at Bill 147 on December 10, 2010 but it also failed to proceed beyond second reading.
History of Administrative Authorities
The key to the Task Force’s recommendations on regulating the towing industry is the formation of an AA which would act as the regulator. Personally, I have some concerns with these recommendations.
Administrative Authorities are not new to Ontario. In 1976, the government established its first AA when Board of Funeral Services was established by the Funeral Services Act to regulate funeral services. As well, Tarion (formerly the Ontario New Home Warranty Program) was established by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to administer warranty coverage to new homebuyers.
In 1996, the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act came into effect which allowed for the creation of a number of AAs. Between 1997 and 1999, the government delegated authority and responsibility for day-to-day regulatory administration to the following sectors in accordance with this Act:
On May 1, 2010, the TSSA became a statutory corporation with enhanced accountability requirements upon the proclamation of the Technical Standards and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2009.
The Retirement Homes Act, 2010, established the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) and sets out its role, responsibilities and powers with respect to care, safety standards and other requirements applying to licensed retirement homes in Ontario with oversight by the Ontario Senior’s Secretariat.
Key objectives of this model in the 1990s was to reduce government expenditures, deliver services more efficiently, avoid unnecessary regulatory burden, and harmonize regulatory regimes across jurisdictions in response to mounting trade pressures.
Will the AA model work for the towing sector?
The Ministry of Consumer Services has oversight responsibility for eight of the authorities currently in operation. With the exception of the VQA sector, the government regulated the other seven sectors directly. These sectors were selected for delegated responsibility because they were mature sectors which had demonstrated their ability to work in partnership with government, and had a track record for addressing and resolving consumer and public safety concerns. With exception to the VQA sector, there were pre-existing statutory standards in all of these sectors.
The first problem with a proposed Towing AA is that there is no existing provincial public authority is currently regulating the sector. There are only municipal authorities that issue business licences but they do not really regulate the industry. Therefore, there is no regulatory expertise or knowledge to transfer to the private sector.
In addition, the towing sector does not have the maturity or a track record in dealing with consumer complaints and public safety issues. Representatives from the towing sector (Provincial Towing Association (Ontario) and Ontario Recovery Group) met with the Task Force to express support for self-regulation but their enthusiasm will not make up for the lack of regulatory expertise.
The Task Force reported that participants repeatedly complained that towing operators are engaged in organized or premeditated auto insurance fraud. There were concerns expressed regarding road safety concerns, insufficiently trained employees, improper equipment, a lack of clarity around fees and the illegal referral fees. Industry representatives reported that they have been unable to deal with corruption in their industry and legitimate operators have become so frustrated that they have begun to leave the industry. This does not sound like an environment where you can create a self-regulatory body.
I’m not suggesting that an AA model for the towing sector can never happen. To its credit the Task Force points out that there is a need for capacity-building in the towing industry. I just think it would be irresponsible if it were to happen in the near future.
So where can we go from here?
The current patchwork of municipal licensing systems is not protecting the public. The Task Force is correct that a province-wide regulatory framework needs to be established. I believe the first step to creating a Towing AA is to establish a regulatory authority within government to develop and enforce industry standards. If the government is contemplating creating a government-run regulatory system for treatment and assessment facilities then it should also consider creating one for towing operators. Only after a regulatory system has been established should consideration be given to transferring it to the private sector. This will provide the towing industry and its associations time to develop some experience in working with the government, working with consumers and establishing some credibility.
There have been a number of attempts to review and/or regulate the cost of towing and storage of vehicles in Ontario over the past decade, several of which I had some involvement. In 2003, the government attempted to introduce a $300 cap on towing and storage costs through a revision to the Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP 1) but that was abandoned out of concern that consumers would be responsible for any excess charges.
In 2004, the Ministry of Finance and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) formed a working group with representatives from the government, insurance industry, police forces and towing industry to address some of the abuse reported by consumers and insurers. There was no consensus coming out of the working group and it was eventually abandoned.
On June, 4, 2008, MPP David Zimmer introduced Bill 87 which would have provided for the self-regulation of the towing industry in Ontario. The bill never proceeded beyond second reading. David Zimmer reintroduced the bill at Bill 147 on December 10, 2010 but it also failed to proceed beyond second reading.
History of Administrative Authorities
The key to the Task Force’s recommendations on regulating the towing industry is the formation of an AA which would act as the regulator. Personally, I have some concerns with these recommendations.
Administrative Authorities are not new to Ontario. In 1976, the government established its first AA when Board of Funeral Services was established by the Funeral Services Act to regulate funeral services. As well, Tarion (formerly the Ontario New Home Warranty Program) was established by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to administer warranty coverage to new homebuyers.
In 1996, the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act came into effect which allowed for the creation of a number of AAs. Between 1997 and 1999, the government delegated authority and responsibility for day-to-day regulatory administration to the following sectors in accordance with this Act:
- Motor Vehicle Dealers and Salespersons → OMVIC
- Real Estate Salespersons and Brokers → RECO
- Travel Retailers and Wholesalers → TICO
- Electrical inspections and safety → ESA
- Safety in 4 sectors: boilers & pressure vessels, amusement & elevating devices, hydrocarbon fuels, upholstered & stuffed articles → TSSA
On May 1, 2010, the TSSA became a statutory corporation with enhanced accountability requirements upon the proclamation of the Technical Standards and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2009.
The Retirement Homes Act, 2010, established the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) and sets out its role, responsibilities and powers with respect to care, safety standards and other requirements applying to licensed retirement homes in Ontario with oversight by the Ontario Senior’s Secretariat.
Key objectives of this model in the 1990s was to reduce government expenditures, deliver services more efficiently, avoid unnecessary regulatory burden, and harmonize regulatory regimes across jurisdictions in response to mounting trade pressures.
Administrative Authority | Type | Evolution |
Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) | Public safety | Responsibility transferred in 1996 from the Technical Standards Division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations |
Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) | Public safety | Responsibility transferred in 1998 from the Electrical Inspection Division of Ontario Hydro |
Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) | Consumer protection | Responsibility transferred from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations |
Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) | Consumer protection | Responsibility transferred from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations |
Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) | Consumer protection | Responsibility transferred from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations |
Tarion Warranty Corporation | Consumer protection | Evolved from the New Home Warranty Program that was originally established in 1976 |
Board of Funeral Services (BOFS) | Consumer protection | Formed in 1976 but predecessor organization established in 1914 |
Vintners Quality Alliance Ontario (VQAO) | Consumer protection | Established by Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in 2000 |
Will the AA model work for the towing sector?
The Ministry of Consumer Services has oversight responsibility for eight of the authorities currently in operation. With the exception of the VQA sector, the government regulated the other seven sectors directly. These sectors were selected for delegated responsibility because they were mature sectors which had demonstrated their ability to work in partnership with government, and had a track record for addressing and resolving consumer and public safety concerns. With exception to the VQA sector, there were pre-existing statutory standards in all of these sectors.
The first problem with a proposed Towing AA is that there is no existing provincial public authority is currently regulating the sector. There are only municipal authorities that issue business licences but they do not really regulate the industry. Therefore, there is no regulatory expertise or knowledge to transfer to the private sector.
In addition, the towing sector does not have the maturity or a track record in dealing with consumer complaints and public safety issues. Representatives from the towing sector (Provincial Towing Association (Ontario) and Ontario Recovery Group) met with the Task Force to express support for self-regulation but their enthusiasm will not make up for the lack of regulatory expertise.
The Task Force reported that participants repeatedly complained that towing operators are engaged in organized or premeditated auto insurance fraud. There were concerns expressed regarding road safety concerns, insufficiently trained employees, improper equipment, a lack of clarity around fees and the illegal referral fees. Industry representatives reported that they have been unable to deal with corruption in their industry and legitimate operators have become so frustrated that they have begun to leave the industry. This does not sound like an environment where you can create a self-regulatory body.
I’m not suggesting that an AA model for the towing sector can never happen. To its credit the Task Force points out that there is a need for capacity-building in the towing industry. I just think it would be irresponsible if it were to happen in the near future.
So where can we go from here?
The current patchwork of municipal licensing systems is not protecting the public. The Task Force is correct that a province-wide regulatory framework needs to be established. I believe the first step to creating a Towing AA is to establish a regulatory authority within government to develop and enforce industry standards. If the government is contemplating creating a government-run regulatory system for treatment and assessment facilities then it should also consider creating one for towing operators. Only after a regulatory system has been established should consideration be given to transferring it to the private sector. This will provide the towing industry and its associations time to develop some experience in working with the government, working with consumers and establishing some credibility.
Kamis, 22 November 2012
Ontario Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force Releases Their Final Report
The Ministry of Finance has released the final reportof the Ontario Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force outlining 38 recommendations, many of them will expand the power of FSCO, the province’s insurance regulator.
The report confirms that fraud is a substantial problem in Ontario despite the fact the Task Force was unable to accurately quantify how much it costs policyholders. The report indicates that the public is aware that fraud is a problem but calls for educating consumers so they can better recognize and avoid fraudulent activity. In addition the report calls for greater public disclosure on the part of insurers, provincial-wide licensing for the towing industry and licensing health care and independent assessment facilities. My report to the Task Force on licensing heath care and independent assessment facilities was also released by the Ministry of Finance.
There is a considerable expansion in responsibility for FSCO proposed by the Task Force. In recognition of the challenge that the implementing the recommendation will present FSCO, the Task Force is recommending that the governmentt should ensure that government-wide hiring constraints do not delay or prevent the FSCO from acquiring necessary resources to carry out an expanded mandate.
In addition, the Minister of Finance should, at an appropriate time, commission an independent review of how well FSCO is carrying out its new responsibilities.
The report confirms that fraud is a substantial problem in Ontario despite the fact the Task Force was unable to accurately quantify how much it costs policyholders. The report indicates that the public is aware that fraud is a problem but calls for educating consumers so they can better recognize and avoid fraudulent activity. In addition the report calls for greater public disclosure on the part of insurers, provincial-wide licensing for the towing industry and licensing health care and independent assessment facilities. My report to the Task Force on licensing heath care and independent assessment facilities was also released by the Ministry of Finance.
There is a considerable expansion in responsibility for FSCO proposed by the Task Force. In recognition of the challenge that the implementing the recommendation will present FSCO, the Task Force is recommending that the governmentt should ensure that government-wide hiring constraints do not delay or prevent the FSCO from acquiring necessary resources to carry out an expanded mandate.
In addition, the Minister of Finance should, at an appropriate time, commission an independent review of how well FSCO is carrying out its new responsibilities.
Some Unusual Comprehensive Claims
In Ontario comprehensive coverage is optional and pays for the cost of repairing or replacing your vehicle up to the actual cash value if it is damaged by other unexpected situations such as falling or flying objects, vandalism, fire, theft or attempted theft, a natural disaster, or a riot or civil disturbance. Just about everything that isn't the result of a collision.
I thought I would share some photos of unusual comprehensive claims - no hailstones or falling trees here. No one was injured in these incidents.
I thought I would share some photos of unusual comprehensive claims - no hailstones or falling trees here. No one was injured in these incidents.
Senin, 19 November 2012
Are We Still Trying To Figure Out What Is a Minor Injury?
The other day Mike Bullard was talking about a recent accident he had on his motorcycle on his radio show. I’ve provided a video of that segment of his show below. What isn’t covered in the taped segment is Bullard’s description of his interaction with his insurer. That can be heard on the podcast of the show (November 16, 2012).
Fortunately as you can hear from his story he did not sustain serious injuries. What you can hear on the podcast is a description of how the adjuster assigned to his file provided him with paper work to begin treatment under the MIG. Bullard refused indicating he didn’t think his injuries were minor and he was waiting for his doctor to report back on his MRI. As a result of his refusal to accept treatment under the MIG, he received a letter from the adjuster indicating that his physiotherapy treatment was being denied.. His doctor did finally report that, in fact, his knee is in pretty bad shape and he has a torn ACL and two tears in the meniscus.
I raise this story because from time to time I hear similar ones. I don’t know how frequently it occurs but it does happen. This was an insured that had returned to work two days after his accident and had refused other services.
The MIG was developed predominantly to deal with whiplash injuries in addition to minor strains and sprains. Torn knee ligaments probably do not fall under minor injury definition but I’m not in a position to make a determination. Sometimes adjusters are too quick to classify an injury without fully considering all the medical evidence.
When a health care provider exaggerates a diagnosis he or she undermines the integrity of the auto insurance system. Similarly an adjuster that inappropriately directs claims into the MIG undermines the system. Both situations increase demand for dispute resolution services and delay access to appropriate rehabilitation services. It is more than 2 years since the SABS minor injury definition was introduced and although disputes that have yet to be resolved regarding the definition, there should be a better understanding of what falls under the definition.
Selasa, 13 November 2012
FSCO's Mediation Backlog Is Getting Smaller
There appears to be some good news coming out from FSCO regarding the backlog of mediation cases. Based on data released by the Commission, the number of disputes waiting to be assigned to a mediator has been falling throughout the year.
At the end of 2011, 29,305 cases were waiting to be assigned to a mediator. However, the backlog was continuing to increase in the early part of 2012. A blog post by an insurance stakeholder in May of this year indicated that the backlog was 35,000 cases at the time. As of September 30, 2012 FSCO reports that the backlog had dropped to 23,745 cases. That is a 19.0% drop in nine month or as much as a 32.2% drop in just five months based on the unconfirmed figures.
In addition, ADR Chambers was selected by FSCO through a Request for Proposal to provide dispute resolution services specifically to target the mediation backlog. FSCO began assigning mediation files to ADR Chambers on September 19, 2012. Up to 2,000 mediation files per month are expected to be assigned to ADR Chambers. This is over and above the files that will continue to be handled by FSCO’s mediators. Therefore, the mediation backlog may very well be below 20,000 cases at this time.
So how has FSCO tackled the backlog? Well beside the ADR Chambers contract, the DRS eCalendar has had a significant impact on mediation process at FSCO.
The DRS eCalendar was first launched in July 2011 and made mandatory on February 1, 2012. The system allows claimant representatives and insurers to book and manage their files online. Not only has it freed up mediators’ time from doing scheduling but has allowed the parties to quickly fill up vacant time in the mediators’ calendars resulting in a significant improvement in productivity. Mediators have been handling many more cases per week – FSCO reports an increase of 63 per cent closed files for the period of February 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012 compared to the corresponding period in 2011.
In addition, the number of applications has begun to drop off. FSCO stats show that back in 2007 FSCO averaged about 1,200 mediation applications per month. The application rate steadily rose over the next four years peaking at 3,000 per month in 2011. Over the first nine months of 2012 the average number of mediation application has been 2,500. If new applications continue drop off, it will allow FSCO to chip away at the backlog that much quicker.
On February 10, 2012, in Leone and State Farm, a FSCO arbitrator ruled that mediation was deemed to have failed because it did not take place within 60 days of an application being filed and that the parties could not extend the time limit on consent once 60 days had expired. On July 31, 2012, a decision was released by the director’s delegate that upheld the 60-day deemed failure. This decision has likely had an impact on the backlog by allowing insureds to jump out of the mediation queue.
FSCO statsshow that the monthly average number of cases closed with full settlements and partial settlements increased by 29% and 38% from 2011 to 2012. However, the monthly average number of cases closed that failed increased by 76% from 2011 to 2012. So it appears failed mediations may also be having an impact on the backlog.
To head off a possible backlog of arbitration cases, the contract with ADR Chambersincludes the ability to assign up to 500 arbitration files per month to the vendors. Again, this is over and above the files that are currently handled by FSCO’s arbitrators.
So when will the backlog disappear? Well it’s difficult to predict as there are a number of factors chipping away at the numbers. My guess is that 12 months from now it may be down to 2,000 cases which would be below the number cases waiting to be assigned to a mediator in 2007.
Sabtu, 03 November 2012
More Could Be Done To Reduce Premiums
Current environment within the auto insurance sector is best described as uncertain. The 2010 reforms changed the playing field but no one knows by how much. Over the past 2 years industry data shows that accident benefit costs have dropped significantly but premiums have not followed suit. Why not?
The 2010 reforms reduced the level of mandatory benefits that consumers much purchase. As many people predicted almost all consumers chose the minimum coverages merely to avoid further rate increases. However, a recent court decision (Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance) creates uncertainty even with regards to the impact of lower coverages. The courts have signalled that if consumers were not properly informed of their options then insurers may be on the hook for the optional benefits.
This is not a problem that the government can fix. Insurers need to be satisfied that they or their agents or brokers are properly informing policyholders about the optional benefits? They need to be certain that they will be able to defend a claim by a policyholder that they were not properly informed about optional benefits.
To its credit, the government has continued examine auto insurance system and work on longer term reforms following the Five Year Review. An expert panel was appointed in 2010 to review the SABS definition of catastrophic impairment. However, the Superintendent's report on the expert panel's work has had minimal stakeholder support. It appears that there has been no attempt to reach a compromise position to get more buy in from stakeholders and so that we can move forward on this issue.
In 2011, the Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force was appointed by the government to measure the impact of fraud in Ontario and recommend changes that would reduce the incidence of fraud. The Task Force has now completed their work and we are awaiting the release of their final report. In their status report released in their summer the Task Force indicated that some changes are already taken place such as changes to HCAI and better training for police regarding fraud identification.
Some of the more significant measures will require legislative and regulatory amendments. It's up to the government to move forward on these recommendations if consumers are to see premium relief. I also can't see why the insurance industry cannot set up an agency similar to the U.S. National Insurance Crime Bureau in Canada and duplicate some of its work. It does not appear to require any legislation. Not all the solutions can come from the government.
One of the more significant reforms introduced in 2010 is the SABS definition of minor injuries
along with the $3,500 cap on rehabilitation and assessment costs. This definition and cap should have brought about a significant reduction in premiums in Ontario. However, a set of circumstance has failed to save consumers any money. Most stakeholders have expressed some uncertainty as to whether the current interpretation of the SABS definition will withstand challenges within the dispute resolution system. It is over 2 years since the reforms were implemented yet no disputes have made their way to arbitration at FSCO as a result of the ongoing backlog of cases in the dispute resolution system.
There are no quick fixes to address the chronic high caseloads at FSCO. However, FSCO could have facilitated more certainty in the system and lower premiums had it fast-tracked a number of cases through their system. Nine million drivers are waiting to see whether the reforms have actually reduced costs in the system. In addition, had these cases revealed flaws in definition (meaning a different interpretation than intended by the government) those issues could have already been addressed through regulatory amendments.
The 2010 reforms reduced the level of mandatory benefits that consumers much purchase. As many people predicted almost all consumers chose the minimum coverages merely to avoid further rate increases. However, a recent court decision (Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance) creates uncertainty even with regards to the impact of lower coverages. The courts have signalled that if consumers were not properly informed of their options then insurers may be on the hook for the optional benefits.
This is not a problem that the government can fix. Insurers need to be satisfied that they or their agents or brokers are properly informing policyholders about the optional benefits? They need to be certain that they will be able to defend a claim by a policyholder that they were not properly informed about optional benefits.
To its credit, the government has continued examine auto insurance system and work on longer term reforms following the Five Year Review. An expert panel was appointed in 2010 to review the SABS definition of catastrophic impairment. However, the Superintendent's report on the expert panel's work has had minimal stakeholder support. It appears that there has been no attempt to reach a compromise position to get more buy in from stakeholders and so that we can move forward on this issue.
In 2011, the Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force was appointed by the government to measure the impact of fraud in Ontario and recommend changes that would reduce the incidence of fraud. The Task Force has now completed their work and we are awaiting the release of their final report. In their status report released in their summer the Task Force indicated that some changes are already taken place such as changes to HCAI and better training for police regarding fraud identification.
Some of the more significant measures will require legislative and regulatory amendments. It's up to the government to move forward on these recommendations if consumers are to see premium relief. I also can't see why the insurance industry cannot set up an agency similar to the U.S. National Insurance Crime Bureau in Canada and duplicate some of its work. It does not appear to require any legislation. Not all the solutions can come from the government.
One of the more significant reforms introduced in 2010 is the SABS definition of minor injuries
along with the $3,500 cap on rehabilitation and assessment costs. This definition and cap should have brought about a significant reduction in premiums in Ontario. However, a set of circumstance has failed to save consumers any money. Most stakeholders have expressed some uncertainty as to whether the current interpretation of the SABS definition will withstand challenges within the dispute resolution system. It is over 2 years since the reforms were implemented yet no disputes have made their way to arbitration at FSCO as a result of the ongoing backlog of cases in the dispute resolution system.
There are no quick fixes to address the chronic high caseloads at FSCO. However, FSCO could have facilitated more certainty in the system and lower premiums had it fast-tracked a number of cases through their system. Nine million drivers are waiting to see whether the reforms have actually reduced costs in the system. In addition, had these cases revealed flaws in definition (meaning a different interpretation than intended by the government) those issues could have already been addressed through regulatory amendments.
Rabu, 31 Oktober 2012
12-Year-Old Sues Parents For Drunk Driving
Photo by RTE
Faith, now 12, is suing her parents for the physical and psychological injury they caused. Faith and her brother, John, sustained severe injuries when their alcoholic mother passed out while driving the children home from school. Ava, Faith’s 6-year-old sister, and friend Michaela Logan, 9, died when the vehicle crashed into an embankment.
The children’s mother, Mary Carberry, was “in the middle of a pub crawl and decided to pick up the four kids from school.” Mary remembers bits of the accident that killed her youngest daughter. “All I remember is the thump. Then the flashing blue lights,” she testified in court in 2007. “I did not know what I hit. I remember Ava, I remember her face, I just don’t know what happened. I don’t remember arriving in the hospital.”
After the accident, Mary was sentenced to six years in prison, but her time was later reduced to four years.
Now, Faith, with the help of her grandfather, is seeking justice for her sister. Faith was injured in the accident, undergoing surgery to her spine and spending ten weeks in a spinal cast at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital. Faith also suffered “severe psychological trauma and upset and she attended a child psychologist for three months after the incident.”
Mary Carberry had already been banned from driving at the time of the accident. After two previous DUIs, Mary had no license and no insured vehicle. Faith’s father – also being targeted in the girl’s lawsuit – claims that he bought Mary a car, but didn’t expect her to drive it. He’d merely purchased the car after Mary allegedly told him that the children were “wet and cold” walking to and from school.
“It pulled at my heart strings. She was seeking for me to provide transport, purchase a car and somebody who was insured and had a full licence would drive it,” Tommy Varden told the court, adding that he never intended for Mary to drive the purchased BMW.
Varden added that Mary was attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at the time, and “seemed to be turning a new leaf.”
The father recounts the night of the accidents, saying that he received a phone call from Mary. “She said Ava was dead and she thought Faith was dead too,” he said. Vargan notes that it was only when he arrived at the hospital that he discovered Mary had been driving the car. “I was angry. I am still very angry. No way would I have given the car to her if I thought she was going to use it that way. I trusted her,” he said.
Faith, however, still holds her father responsible. He did, after all, purchase Mary a car. Vargan insists that, although he’d purchased the vehicle, it was only later that he discovered Mary had insured it, forging his signature on a check.
The lawsuit was settled on Wednesday, but the official outcome has yet to be disclosed.
According to Yahoo!News, Faith’s story is not a unique one. In the US, more than two-thirds of children fatally injured in car accidents “were riding with drunk drivers.” Young children, unlike adults, often do not have the awareness or option to opt out of getting into a car with an intoxicated driver, especially if a parent is behind the wheel.
In March, a mom in Iowa was allegedly driving drunk, and her 15-year-old daughter called 911 from the passenger’s seat. In 2009, four young kids died in a crash after their guardian was found to have a “blood alcohol level of .19 percent.
source
Facebook Link Helps Break insurance Fraud Case
The value of analytics as a fraud tool has become well accepted. The concept has been borrowed from social media platforms like Facebook where users can reach out to past friends who share similar characteristics such as attending the same school, summer camp or workplaces. The case below illustrates that even without sophisticated analytics, social connections can help identify potential fraud cases.
Four Sacramento women are suspected of working together to defraud auto insurers of more than $37,000, according to the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said Susan Lee, 24; Angelique Jones, 20; Angela Medeiros, 40; and, Krystelmaree Marquez, 23 denied knowing each other but investigators obtained Facebook records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said according to detectives, 23-year-old Krystelmaree Marquez rented a U-Haul truck Dec. 11, 2011 and purchased extra insurance protection. She was driving the truck the next day when she was involved in a collision with a Toyota Yaris drivien by 40-year-old Angela Medeiros with 24-year-old Susan Lee and 20-year-old Angelique Jones as passengers. The women all claimed crash-related injuries. Althausen also said Medeiros denied knowing the other involved parties to insurance company representatives and the other three women said they didn't know Medeiros.
However, Althausen said investigators obtained Facebook account records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
Medeiros, Lee and Jones were arrested on suspicion of three fraud charges including providing false statements in support of an insurance claim and participating in a vehicle collision for the purpose of submitting a false insurance claim. Marquez, who faces the same allegations, hasn't been located.
Althausen said if convicted of all charges, the suspects face two to five years in state prison and/or a $50,000 fine.
source
Four Sacramento women are suspected of working together to defraud auto insurers of more than $37,000, according to the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said Susan Lee, 24; Angelique Jones, 20; Angela Medeiros, 40; and, Krystelmaree Marquez, 23 denied knowing each other but investigators obtained Facebook records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
CDI spokesman Dave Althausen said according to detectives, 23-year-old Krystelmaree Marquez rented a U-Haul truck Dec. 11, 2011 and purchased extra insurance protection. She was driving the truck the next day when she was involved in a collision with a Toyota Yaris drivien by 40-year-old Angela Medeiros with 24-year-old Susan Lee and 20-year-old Angelique Jones as passengers. The women all claimed crash-related injuries. Althausen also said Medeiros denied knowing the other involved parties to insurance company representatives and the other three women said they didn't know Medeiros.
However, Althausen said investigators obtained Facebook account records and determined the foursome did know each other as "friends" on the social media website.
Medeiros, Lee and Jones were arrested on suspicion of three fraud charges including providing false statements in support of an insurance claim and participating in a vehicle collision for the purpose of submitting a false insurance claim. Marquez, who faces the same allegations, hasn't been located.
Althausen said if convicted of all charges, the suspects face two to five years in state prison and/or a $50,000 fine.
source
Senin, 29 Oktober 2012
California Proposition 33, Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts
In California, a ballot proposition is a proposed law that is submitted to the electorate for approval in a direct vote. Propositions have been part of the California political landscape for quite some time.
A ballot proposition may be proposed by the State Legislature or by a petition signed by members of the public under the initiative system.
One of the best known was Proposition 13 in 1978 which decreased property taxes and imposed a 2/3 requirement for budget votes and tax increases. Some Propositions have been passed but found unconstitutional such as Proposition 22 in 2000 which banned same-sex marriages but was struck down by the California Supreme Court.
On November 6th, there will be eleven propositions on the ballot including Proposition 33 which if passed would change current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Insurance companies would be allowed to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage and increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. It would also treat drivers with a lapse as continuously covered if the lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if the lapse is less than 90 days.
Proposition 33 is similar to Proposition 17, which was on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. Unlike Proposition 17, Proposition 33 exempts soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months or less from paying more after a lapse.
There is a provision in Ontario regulations dealing with lapses in insurance coverage. Ontario Regulation 664 prohibits an insurer from considering a lapse in insurance coverage for purposes of risk classification unless:
California law requires all drivers to buy automobile insurance. Approximately 85% of California drivers follow the law and buy insurance. If you follow the law and maintain continuous automobile insurance coverage, you are currently eligible for a discount, but only if you stay with the same insurance company. Current law punishes you for seeking better insurance or trying to get a better deal by taking away your discount for being continuously insured.
Those opposed are concerned that insurers will use the new rules to raise rates on drivers. There is concerns that people who stop driving, perhaps for economic reasons, and need to begin driving again and will therefore pay higher rates. The Ontario regulation only allows insurers raise rates due to a lapse of coverage where the lapse was the result of a driving conviction, licence suspension of policy cancellation.
UPDATE: Proposition 33 was defeated on Tuesday for the second time in three years. It was the second attempt by billionaire insurance executive George Joseph to let insurers lower rates for drivers who maintain insurance coverage and raise them for drivers who dropped coverage in the past. Consumer advocates raised about $200,000 to defeat the measure but were dramatically outspent by Joseph, who donated $16 million to the yes campaign.
A ballot proposition may be proposed by the State Legislature or by a petition signed by members of the public under the initiative system.
One of the best known was Proposition 13 in 1978 which decreased property taxes and imposed a 2/3 requirement for budget votes and tax increases. Some Propositions have been passed but found unconstitutional such as Proposition 22 in 2000 which banned same-sex marriages but was struck down by the California Supreme Court.
On November 6th, there will be eleven propositions on the ballot including Proposition 33 which if passed would change current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Insurance companies would be allowed to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage and increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. It would also treat drivers with a lapse as continuously covered if the lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if the lapse is less than 90 days.
Proposition 33 is similar to Proposition 17, which was on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. Unlike Proposition 17, Proposition 33 exempts soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months or less from paying more after a lapse.
There is a provision in Ontario regulations dealing with lapses in insurance coverage. Ontario Regulation 664 prohibits an insurer from considering a lapse in insurance coverage for purposes of risk classification unless:
- the insured person was convicted of driving without insurance during the lapse in coverage;
- the lapse resulted from the termination of an automobile insurance policy because the insured person failed to pay the premiums due under the policy;
- the lapse resulted from the suspension of the insured person's driver's license as a result of a driving conviction;
- the lapse resulted from the insured person's attempt to misrepresent their driving record due to earlier accidents or convictions, in order to avoid paying higher insurance premiums.
California law requires all drivers to buy automobile insurance. Approximately 85% of California drivers follow the law and buy insurance. If you follow the law and maintain continuous automobile insurance coverage, you are currently eligible for a discount, but only if you stay with the same insurance company. Current law punishes you for seeking better insurance or trying to get a better deal by taking away your discount for being continuously insured.
Those opposed are concerned that insurers will use the new rules to raise rates on drivers. There is concerns that people who stop driving, perhaps for economic reasons, and need to begin driving again and will therefore pay higher rates. The Ontario regulation only allows insurers raise rates due to a lapse of coverage where the lapse was the result of a driving conviction, licence suspension of policy cancellation.
UPDATE: Proposition 33 was defeated on Tuesday for the second time in three years. It was the second attempt by billionaire insurance executive George Joseph to let insurers lower rates for drivers who maintain insurance coverage and raise them for drivers who dropped coverage in the past. Consumer advocates raised about $200,000 to defeat the measure but were dramatically outspent by Joseph, who donated $16 million to the yes campaign.
Kamis, 25 Oktober 2012
Dwight Duncan To Retire
Earlier I had written on the impact of Premier Dalton McGuinty's resignation on the auto insurance system. At the time I had speculated, as had others, that Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan would be running for Liberal leadership.
McGuinty had informed his Cabinet that ministers planning to run for leader would have to resign from Cabinet. I can tell you from experience that this was a wise decision. Back in 2002, when Mike Harris stepped down as premier of Ontario he did not ask his ministers to resign if there were running to replace him. As a result Cabinet dissolved into competing factions and was pretty dysfunctional for a while. I had an opportunity to observe this first hand when appearing before a Cabinet committee I witnessed a war break out over a minor regulation change being brought to the committee by the minister who was a leadership candidate where the committee chair was also leadership candidate.
My earlier post had suggested that with Minister Duncan resigning to run for leader, there would be little happening on the auto insurance file for some time. Now that he appears to be staying in Cabinet there will be some opportunities over the next few months to move some auto insurance issues forward. There will be no legislative changes with the legislature having been prorogued, but they may be opportunities to make some regulatory changes since Cabinet will continue to meet.
This window will be small with a leadership vote over the weekend of January 25th. Shortly after the new premier will likely be appointing a new Cabinet before calling an election. Since Minister Duncan has announced he will not be running for re-election, he will certainly be replaced shortly after the Liberal leadership convention.
So during this small window, if the outgoing minister still wants to make changes to the UDAP regulations or the definition of catastrophic impairment, it is possible. In addition, since he is leaving office he may be may more willing to introduce changes that might be more contentious.
So this change in events creates a different set of opportunities and possibilities, so stay tuned. It could get interesting.
McGuinty had informed his Cabinet that ministers planning to run for leader would have to resign from Cabinet. I can tell you from experience that this was a wise decision. Back in 2002, when Mike Harris stepped down as premier of Ontario he did not ask his ministers to resign if there were running to replace him. As a result Cabinet dissolved into competing factions and was pretty dysfunctional for a while. I had an opportunity to observe this first hand when appearing before a Cabinet committee I witnessed a war break out over a minor regulation change being brought to the committee by the minister who was a leadership candidate where the committee chair was also leadership candidate.
My earlier post had suggested that with Minister Duncan resigning to run for leader, there would be little happening on the auto insurance file for some time. Now that he appears to be staying in Cabinet there will be some opportunities over the next few months to move some auto insurance issues forward. There will be no legislative changes with the legislature having been prorogued, but they may be opportunities to make some regulatory changes since Cabinet will continue to meet.
This window will be small with a leadership vote over the weekend of January 25th. Shortly after the new premier will likely be appointing a new Cabinet before calling an election. Since Minister Duncan has announced he will not be running for re-election, he will certainly be replaced shortly after the Liberal leadership convention.
So during this small window, if the outgoing minister still wants to make changes to the UDAP regulations or the definition of catastrophic impairment, it is possible. In addition, since he is leaving office he may be may more willing to introduce changes that might be more contentious.
So this change in events creates a different set of opportunities and possibilities, so stay tuned. It could get interesting.
Sabtu, 20 Oktober 2012
Woman Accused Of Committing Insurance Fraud From Inside Ambulance
This is an interesting story from Philadelphis where woman tried to commit insurance fraud — from an ambulance — after her vehicle was involved in an accident.
On the way to the hospital after she was involved in a four-car accident last October, Regina Whitehead did what most people do: She called her insurance company.
Only she didn’t call to report the accident, but to add comprehensive, collision and rental coverage, according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.
Recently, Whitehead was charged with insurance fraud and criminal attempt/theft by deception. The 22-year-old Ambler woman was arraigned before Bensalem District Judge Joseph Falcone, who set her free on $25,000 unsecured bail.
Both charges are third-degree felonies punishable by up to seven years in prison.
According to the AG’s office, Whitehead’s 1998 Ford Taurus was involved in the accident Oct. 6, 2011, shortly before 4 p.m. on West Chester Pike in Chester County. At the time, Whitehead was insured through Infinity Insurance, which has an office in Bensalem, according to a probable cause affidavit.
About an hour after the accident -- during an ambulance ride to Chester County Hospital for treatment -- Whitehead allegedly called the insurance company to add extra coverage to her car, according to court documents.
A few hours later on the night of the accident, she called Infinity to report she was involved in an accident and to verify that she had comprehensive collision coverage. She was told during the phone call that if she didn't have the coverage in place at the time of the accident, the insurer wouldn't cover the damage, according to the attorney general.
The next day, Whitehead spoke with an Infinity representative in Bensalem and specifically affirmed that her collision coverage was added “before the accident,” according to the affidavit. Later that same day, though, she withdrew her insurance claim.
The attorney general said Whitehead admitted last month that she added the coverage after being injured in the accident and while in the ambulance and then lied about it. “Whitehead said she did this at the advice of a friend so she would be covered by the insurance company,” according to the attorney general.
source
Only she didn’t call to report the accident, but to add comprehensive, collision and rental coverage, according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.
Recently, Whitehead was charged with insurance fraud and criminal attempt/theft by deception. The 22-year-old Ambler woman was arraigned before Bensalem District Judge Joseph Falcone, who set her free on $25,000 unsecured bail.
Both charges are third-degree felonies punishable by up to seven years in prison.
According to the AG’s office, Whitehead’s 1998 Ford Taurus was involved in the accident Oct. 6, 2011, shortly before 4 p.m. on West Chester Pike in Chester County. At the time, Whitehead was insured through Infinity Insurance, which has an office in Bensalem, according to a probable cause affidavit.
About an hour after the accident -- during an ambulance ride to Chester County Hospital for treatment -- Whitehead allegedly called the insurance company to add extra coverage to her car, according to court documents.
A few hours later on the night of the accident, she called Infinity to report she was involved in an accident and to verify that she had comprehensive collision coverage. She was told during the phone call that if she didn't have the coverage in place at the time of the accident, the insurer wouldn't cover the damage, according to the attorney general.
The next day, Whitehead spoke with an Infinity representative in Bensalem and specifically affirmed that her collision coverage was added “before the accident,” according to the affidavit. Later that same day, though, she withdrew her insurance claim.
The attorney general said Whitehead admitted last month that she added the coverage after being injured in the accident and while in the ambulance and then lied about it. “Whitehead said she did this at the advice of a friend so she would be covered by the insurance company,” according to the attorney general.
source
Selasa, 16 Oktober 2012
Will The Resignation Of The Premier Impact On The Auto Insurance Sector?
As we look around at the fallout after Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty resigned after nine years in office, informing caucus on Monday evening that it is time for renewal.
Earlier in the day Mr. McGuinty asked the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue the legislature amid continuing fallout from a scandal over the politically motivated cancellation of two power plants and an ongoing battle with organized labour over plans to impose new collective agreements that contain wage freezes via legislation.
Proroguing the legislature makes a lot of sense when the government is essentially leaderless although a caretaker leader could have been appointed. Proroguing the legislature is a gift to the next premier because the contempt charges directed at the government end along with all the bills before the legislature. As well during the Liberal leadership the Opposition will not be able to embarrass the government if the legislature is not sitting. There is a possibility despite that the new Premier will immediately call an election despite the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005 which calls for fixed election dates. The outcome of an election are impossible to predict at this time but it is possible that another party will form the next government.
So how will this all impact on the auto insurance sector? After all there are a number of significant policy initiatives that are in the pipeline.
Definition of Catastrophic Impairment
The Superintendent at FSCO submitted his recommendations for changes to the SABS definition of catastrophic impairment to Minister Dwight Duncan in December 2011. His report was released in the spring of 2012 and was consulted on by the Ministry of Finance over the summer. There has been wide-spread opposition to the Superintendent's report. Some of the recommendations reflect scientific evidence but others do not. Even those recommendations that are based on science have an element of arbitrariness in the selection of the catastrophic threshold.
If Minister Duncan decides to run for leadership he will likely be asked to resign from Cabinet. It is unlikely that his replacement will want to wade into this contentious policy initiatives that provides no political benefits. The prospects for a regulation change are poor.
Fraud
The Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force is at the conclusion of their mandate and very close to providing the minister with their final report. However, it is unclear who that minister will be and how long he or she will be the minister. So what he or she will do with that report is unclear. It is highly probable that the next minister will be relatively unfamiliar with auto insurance policy and will need to spend time being brief on the portfolio in addition to other finance issues.
It is likely that the more significant changes to be recommended by the Task Force will require amendments to the Insurance Act. However, with the legislature prorogued, there won't be any bills introduced for at least 6 months if not more. Even those changes that only require regulatory changes may also be put on hold. Regulation changes can be made by Cabinet which will continue to meet during the Liberals' leadership campaign. However, it will not likely be business as usual until a new premier is selected. Cabinet will continue to make decisions but new policy initiatives will not likely be acted upon except where there is an urgent need.
There are ant-fraud initiatives that will not require legislation or regulation, for example most of the consumer education and engagement proposals. These recommendations may not be delayed.
It is also not likely that the Task Force will be ignored if there is a new government. All the parties have stated that they support initiatives that address auto insurance fraud. What is unclear is how much of the Task Force's report that will be acted on.
Dispute Resolution Review
The government has made a commitment in the 2012 Budget to review the dispute resolution system operated by FSCO. The review arose from the mediation backlog that has crippled the auto insurance system. No announcement has been made by the Ministry of Finance regarding the vehicle for conducting the review or the time line. There is no reason to delay the review until after a new premier is selected as the review is likely to be overseen by bureaucrats and not politicians. By the time the review is completed the legislature will have returned and if the government decides to act on the recommendations, a bill could be introduced.
Earlier in the day Mr. McGuinty asked the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue the legislature amid continuing fallout from a scandal over the politically motivated cancellation of two power plants and an ongoing battle with organized labour over plans to impose new collective agreements that contain wage freezes via legislation.
Proroguing the legislature makes a lot of sense when the government is essentially leaderless although a caretaker leader could have been appointed. Proroguing the legislature is a gift to the next premier because the contempt charges directed at the government end along with all the bills before the legislature. As well during the Liberal leadership the Opposition will not be able to embarrass the government if the legislature is not sitting. There is a possibility despite that the new Premier will immediately call an election despite the Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005 which calls for fixed election dates. The outcome of an election are impossible to predict at this time but it is possible that another party will form the next government.
So how will this all impact on the auto insurance sector? After all there are a number of significant policy initiatives that are in the pipeline.
Definition of Catastrophic Impairment
The Superintendent at FSCO submitted his recommendations for changes to the SABS definition of catastrophic impairment to Minister Dwight Duncan in December 2011. His report was released in the spring of 2012 and was consulted on by the Ministry of Finance over the summer. There has been wide-spread opposition to the Superintendent's report. Some of the recommendations reflect scientific evidence but others do not. Even those recommendations that are based on science have an element of arbitrariness in the selection of the catastrophic threshold.
If Minister Duncan decides to run for leadership he will likely be asked to resign from Cabinet. It is unlikely that his replacement will want to wade into this contentious policy initiatives that provides no political benefits. The prospects for a regulation change are poor.
Fraud
The Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force is at the conclusion of their mandate and very close to providing the minister with their final report. However, it is unclear who that minister will be and how long he or she will be the minister. So what he or she will do with that report is unclear. It is highly probable that the next minister will be relatively unfamiliar with auto insurance policy and will need to spend time being brief on the portfolio in addition to other finance issues.
It is likely that the more significant changes to be recommended by the Task Force will require amendments to the Insurance Act. However, with the legislature prorogued, there won't be any bills introduced for at least 6 months if not more. Even those changes that only require regulatory changes may also be put on hold. Regulation changes can be made by Cabinet which will continue to meet during the Liberals' leadership campaign. However, it will not likely be business as usual until a new premier is selected. Cabinet will continue to make decisions but new policy initiatives will not likely be acted upon except where there is an urgent need.
There are ant-fraud initiatives that will not require legislation or regulation, for example most of the consumer education and engagement proposals. These recommendations may not be delayed.
It is also not likely that the Task Force will be ignored if there is a new government. All the parties have stated that they support initiatives that address auto insurance fraud. What is unclear is how much of the Task Force's report that will be acted on.
Dispute Resolution Review
The government has made a commitment in the 2012 Budget to review the dispute resolution system operated by FSCO. The review arose from the mediation backlog that has crippled the auto insurance system. No announcement has been made by the Ministry of Finance regarding the vehicle for conducting the review or the time line. There is no reason to delay the review until after a new premier is selected as the review is likely to be overseen by bureaucrats and not politicians. By the time the review is completed the legislature will have returned and if the government decides to act on the recommendations, a bill could be introduced.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)