A1
Adam Huras
Telegraph-Journal
FREDERICTON - A provincial report is recommending greater compensation for those suffering minor injuries in a car accident.
A review of a cap on compensation for minor injury victims by the Automobile Insurance Working Group calls for an existing $2,500 limit on court awards to be increased to between $4,000 and $6,000.
The report also recommends replacing the current definition of soft-tissue auto injuries with one that narrows the definition to include only strains, sprains and whiplash.
"We feel that the new definition will make sure that the people with minor personal injuries will now fall under the cap and those who do not will be entitled to the reasonable compensation they deserve," said Michel Leger, chairman of the working group, said Wednesday.
"We heard that in some circumstances currently it is certainly not the case."
The report describes the existing definition as too vague, confusing and complex.
Current legislation defines a "minor personal injury" as one that does not result in permanent serious disfigurement or a permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by a continuing physical injury.
The working group recommends that the definition be replaced with the following:
"A minor personal injury is a sprain or strain or whiplash-associated disorder, or a combination thereof, which results in minor consequences to a person's life."
"Minor consequences" is then defined as an injury that doesn't last more than six month and allows the accident victim to return his or her pre-accident physical abilities in that time frame.
"What's good about this is that it actually defines what is a minor injury (as) opposed to the existing definition the only states what it is not," New Brunswick's Consumer Advocate for Insurance Ronald Godin said.
"...?The notion of $2,500 for pain and suffering in cases of serious injuries was offensive to some people."
Justice Minister Marie-Claude Blais said government must now review the report's findings.
"We need to run numbers and we need to look at the impact on rates," she said. "It will not be done quickly because it is important work that has impact on almost every New Brunswicker, so I am thinking of maybe early next year."
The Canadian Bar Association has lobbied the provincial government to remove the cap while asking for the definition of "small injury" to be redrawn.
Stéphane Viola, a working group member and a Moncton injury lawyer who represents the association on the issue, said the definition was being interpreted to include serious injuries such as broken bones, which often require much more than $2,500 for rehabilitation.
"The report is the compromise of every party's position and I think it's for the best for the consumer, victims and New Brunswickers in general," Viola said.
The cap was introduced in 2003 by the Conservative government of Bernard Lord to curb spiralling insurance premiums.
Liberal justice critic Chris Collins raised concerns on Wednesday that the increase could cause a spike in insurance premiums.
"I'm a little worried about premiums because we don't believe that the New Brunswick Insurance Board is doing its job and we think we should have a much more effective regulatory body put in place before insurance companies can use this excuse to increase rates for New Brunswick rate payers," Collins said.
Firms wishing to raise their automobile insurance rates in New Brunswick must appear before the board. It made headlines earlier this year after it lost a case launched by the Attorney General's office in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.
The court ordered the board to reopen two cases in which it had allowed insurance companies to raise their rates.
The board eventually ordered one of the firms, Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, to give consumers a rebate. The other case, involving the Pembridge Insurance Company, is still pending.
Bill Adams, Atlantic vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, stated during the working group's public hearings that the cap could be raised without impacting rates.
But both Adams and Godin have said that the effects will not be known until the first injury claims under the proposed structure make their way through the courts.
Leger said the $4,000 to $6,000 range was left open to allow the government to review actuary reports and determine a compensation level with potential premium increases in mind.
The range was also proposed to allow for indexing due to inflation.
While the Automobile Insurance Working Group was only mandated to review the cap on pain and suffering awards and the legal definition of what constitutes a minor personal injury, it also recommends that better information for claimants is needed after a motor vehicle accident.
Quicker access to care for claimants and a review of auto insurance at least every five years should also be considered, the report stated.
"At the public consultation sessions, we saw victims break down in tears," reads the report.
"It was not the relating of their accident and injuries that brought on the emotion. It was the stress and frustration they said they'd endured post-accident, trying to navigate the complex, confusing and often unfriendly systems they must overcome if they hope to get a fair settlement for their pain and suffering."
Logged in visitors may comment on articles, enter contests, manage home delivery holds and much more online. Your ONE Account grants you access to features and content across the entire CanadaEast Network of sites.
I liked this post very much as it has helped me a lot in my research and is quite interesting as well.Great Inspirable blog you have held here on Hosting In Etamhost thank you for sharing like that good information. Thank you for sharing this information with us.
ReplyDeleteIf these new articles become available in case any changes occur in the current publication, I would like to read more and learn how to make full use of these methods can be worth to discuss.
ReplyDelete