Saturday, 28 March 2015

New Inspection Powers to Address Auto Insurance Fraud

New inspection powers that were included in the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014 come into effect on April 1, 2015.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2002 has amended to regulate consumer transactions involving tow and storage services and establishes rules for the towing and vehicle storage industries through measures that tackle questionable practices.

As examples, rules are provided for:

1. Disclosure of information to consumers.
2. Requirements that tow and storage services provided to consumers be authorized.
3. Deviating from estimated payment amounts.
4. The provision of itemized invoices.
5. Insurance requirements.
6. Publication of rates.
7. A Tow and Storage Consumers Bill of Rights.
8. Requirements that consumers be allowed to remove personal property from towed or stored vehicles.
9. The establishment of qualifications for tow and storage providers.

New inspectors will be appointed under the Consumer Protection Act in order to take a more preventative and targeted approach to enforcement through the use of education and awareness materials and new tools such as warning letters.

With these new changes, inspectors will be able to:

  • Proactively enter a place of business in Ontario Examine documentation relevant to an inspection 
  • Require the person being inspected to cooperate in the inspection 
  • Issue orders to address and correct consumer issues, where appropriate.
This is part of an ongoing process in implementing recommendations made by the Automobile Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force.

Monday, 23 March 2015

Uber Drivers, Consumers at Risk

I'm featured in the news report below on Uber and insurance.

Mon, Mar 23: Customers who used ride-sharing services like UberX may be at risk if the driver is involved in an accident. As Sean O’Shea reports insurance experts say drivers are violating insurance rules and may be putting themselves and their fares in jeopardy.



Thursday, 5 March 2015

Government Begins FSCO Mandate Review

The Ontario government has launched a review of the mandates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario (DICO).

The mandate reviews were announced as part of the 2014 Ontario Fall Economic Statement.  A panel of experts has not been established to take the lead on the mandate reviews:

  • George Cooke - former president and CEO of The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, and current chair of the board of directors of OMERS Administration Corp. 
  • James Daw - former Toronto Star personal finance columnist who has written extensively about all facets of Ontario's financial system.
  •  Larry Ritchie - Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP partner and former vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission.
The FSCO mandate review is timely given a number of government actions.  In the fall, the government passed Bill 15 which includes provisions that when enacted will remove the auto insurance dispute resolution system from FSCO and create a new system at the Licence Appeal Tribunal.  In addition, the 2014 Auditor General report  proposed assigning the regulation of a number of entities (e.g., agents, adjusters and mortgage brokers) to industry associations. 

 The review will include broad consultations with the financial services sectors regulated by FSCO including the insurance sector and pension plans. As well, a consultation paper will be posted online and the public will be invited to comment on the issues being examined. The government will consider any necessary legislative changes based on the outcomes of the review. The government expects the review to be completed by early next winter.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Personal Injury Lawyer Launches a Constitutional Challenge Against Bill 15

Joseph Campisi, a Toronto area personal injury has launched a constitutional challenge to Bill 15, Fighting Fraud and Reducing Auto Insurance Rates Act, 2014.  The bill received Royal Assent in November 2014 and introduces a number of changes to the auto insurance system including:
  • moving SABS disputes to the Licence Appeal Tribunal
  • introduce  regulation to the towing and vehicle storage industries
  • authorize the province to reduce vehicle storage costs.
However the likely the trigger for the action is the provision in the bill that takes away the right of accident victims to take disputes regarding accident benefits to the courts instead of arbitration.  This provision was opposed by both plaintiff and defense lawyers, accident victims and health professional groups. Below is post on Joseph Campisi's blog regarding his action.


Joseph Campisi, lawyer and advocate, is launching a constitutional challenge in the Ontario Superior Courts.  Mr. Campisi is seeking a declaration from the courts that parts of the legislation that were recently passed by the Liberal Government are discriminatory and unconstitutional and should be inoperative.
“The right to access the Superior Courts is a fundamental right for Canadians.  I am concerned that the recently proclaimed legislation will deny this right to individuals who have been severely disabled.” said applicant and noted Personal Injury Lawyer Joseph Campisi.  “Historically, the deck has been stacked against collision victims.  The recent amendments to the legislation have turned a bad situation into a worse one for these vulnerable individuals.  No longer will these individuals be allowed to have the assurance of impartiality and independence that is a cornerstone of our justice system when litigating a claim against their own insurance company.  I could not stand idly by and let this happen.”
In the fall, of 2014, the Ontario Government passed Bill 15 which is titled Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates.  One of the legislative amendments changes how disputes between insurers and insured are settled.  Historically, disputes could be brought before the Superior Courts or before sophisticated arbitrators with expertise in interpreting insurance law.  Bill 15 has changed how disputes are resolved by giving the sole adjudicative power to individuals who will be appointed at the whim of the Liberal Government.  These are the same decision makers who have jurisdiction on matters ranging from film classification to upholstered and stuffed articles. Unlike historical appointments, individuals without any specialization or guaranteed independence or impartiality will be ruling on disputes that can run into the millions of dollars and will determine the quality of life that an automobile victim will face going forward.
“This application will challenge Bill 15 on the basis that it violates disabled persons’ Chapter s.15(1) right to be free from discrimination.  Bill 15 is also being challenged based on s.96 of the Constitution which relates to the public’s right to have access to the courts.  The way in which Bill 15 is drafted opens the door to political interference.  The government of the day can choose who will hear any dispute and if the government does not agree with the arbitrator’s decisions, the government can get rid of the adjudicator the next day.  When it comes to lobbying the government there is little doubt as to who has the deeper pockets- automobile insurers or accident victims.  Introducing such laws is undemocratic and detracts from the rule of law.  This legal challenge will fight for disabled individuals’ right to fair treatment and the public’s right to access the impartial court system.”

Thursday, 22 January 2015

Ontario Auto Insurance Rates Fall by 1.44% in 2014

This past week FSCO released rate filings approved for fourth quarter of 2014. Sixteen insurers, representing 46.81% of the market based on premium volume, had rates approved in the fourth quarter of 2014. Approved rates decreased on average by 0.54% when applied across the total market.  The total annual approved rate decreased on average  1.44% in 2014.

 In the backdrop is the Ontario government's commitment to reduce rates in the province by 15% before August 15, 2015. The chart below breaks down the quarterly rate approval changes following the announcement of the rate reduction strategy in 2013. The third quarter of 2013 has been included although many of the rate approvals for that quarter may have been filed well before the strategy was announced.

Quarter
Rate Change
2013-3Q
-0.68%
2013-4Q
-3.98%
2014-1Q
-1.01%
2014-2Q
+0.22%
2014-3Q
-0.11%
2014-4Q
-0.54%


Total 2014
-1.44%
Total Since Aug 2013
-6.10%

The accumulative rate reductions approved by FSCO during this period have been  6.1%. With just 7 months remaining, the government is considerably short of its target and requires further reductions of about 9%.  Likely not achievable in the remaining time despite the recent passage of Bill 15 and a number of regulatory changes.  The government will not achieve sufficient savings from reduced interest payments and the licensing of service providers to bring down rates another 9%.  If the creation of a new dispute resolution system at the Licence Appeal Tribunal has an impact on costs, it will not happen in 2015.  

However, the government has not abandoned their rate reduction strategy.  That might mean additional reforms may be on the way and that the timeframe for achieving the target will need to be extended.  The report on FSCO's Three Year Review has not been released The review was initiated in 2014 and one must assume it was been completed by now.  It is possible that the review could evolve into another set of reforms as was the case in 2009. The government is also committed to a minor injury treatment protocol, towing regulations and changes to the definition of catastrophic impairment.  

We shall see what transpires in the months ahead.

Friday, 5 December 2014

Are Insurers Using Cost Control Tools Properly?

I noticed an interesting section at the end of a recent bulletin issued by FSCO regarding recent regulation changes that I reviewed in a recent post.  Thrown in with the announcement of regulatory changes is a discussion on mileage expenses by health care providers.

The bulletin goes on to state that FSCO is aware that some health care providers are submitting mileage expenses to insurers to travel to an injured accident victim to provide services. Insurers are reminded that "authorized transportation expenses", as defined in the SABS, are intended to apply to expenses incurred by the insured person and not health care providers.  Details of what can be claimed by insured persons are subject to the Superintendent’s Transportation Expense Guideline.

The bulletin also reminds insurers that hourly fees in the Superintendent's Professional Services Guideline include all administration costs, overhead, and related costs, fees, expenses, charges and surcharges. Insurers are not liable for any administration or other costs, overhead, fees, expenses, charges or surcharges that have the result of increasing the effective hourly rates, or the maximum fees payable for completing forms, beyond what is permitted under the Professional Services Guideline.

My guess is that these aren't just friendly reminders.  More likely FSCO has become aware that health care providers are submitting for mileage and other expenses related to treatment of insureds, and insurers are paying them.  While the industry is lobbying government to reduce costs in the system, insurers are paying for expenses that do not fall under the SABS.

Having worked for the government for many years I am fully aware of the amount of lobbying in which stakeholders partake.  Insurance companies are not shrinking violets when it comes to lobbying efforts.  There is a constant list of suggested changes presented to government officials to reduce the cost of auto insurance.

It was frustrating to work on endless changes to the system that will never be fully utilized. We now have a complex set of rules, many proposed by the insurance industry, that are not always being used. It is a system that is too complex for many to properly understand and use.

Yet the government keeps churning out more regulation and rule changes to drive down costs.  But growing red tape and complexity likely have the opposite affect.  Transactional costs keep going up for insurers, health care providers and legal representatives which ensures that the price of auto insurance in Ontario remains high.

As the service provider licensing system is rolled out and soon to be followed by a new minor injury protocol I wonder which direction costs will go - up or down.