TORONTO, June 2, 2015 /CNW/ – Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) is pleased to announce the election, by its Board of Directors, of Sylvie Paquette as Chair. Ms. Paquette is President and Chief Operating Officer of Desjardins General Insurance Group (DGIG). Ms. Paquette has served on the IBC Board since 2010.
Kenn Lalonde, Executive Vice President, Insurance, TD Bank Group and President and CEO, TD Insurance, has been elected as IBC’s Deputy Chair.
“The pace of change in Canada’s private property and casualty insurance industry continues to increase. The market and consumers both demand more from insurers, and they require it more rapidly than ever before. I look forward to working with IBC and its other member companies to ensure that our strategic priorities meet the needs of Canadians,” said Ms. Paquette. “Together we will continue to put consumers first to ensure an environment in which consumers and government trust, value and support the private P&C insurance industry.”
Ms. Paquette has been with Desjardins since 1984. Prior to being appointed President & COO of DGIG in 2008, she held a number of progressive leadership positions in the organization.
“Sylvie brings an immense amount of knowledge and experience to this role. We look forward to working with her on key issues that will help consumers and strengthen Canada’s private P&C insurance industry,” said Don Forgeron, President and CEO, IBC. “She is passionate about educating consumers and governments about the key issues facing our industry. Her leadership will help us advance our strategic priorities, including promoting sustainable and affordable auto insurance systems across the country and helping protect Canadians from the impact of severe weather.”
Ms. Paquette has a degree in actuarial science from Université Laval and is a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuarial Society. She is on the board of directors of several P&C insurance industry organizations and is recognized for her community involvement.
About Insurance Bureau of Canada
Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) is the national industry association representing Canada’s private home, auto and business insurers. Its member companies make up 90% of the property and casualty (P&C) insurance market inCanada. For more than 50 years, IBC has worked with governments across the country to help make affordable home, auto and business insurance available for all Canadians. IBC supports the vision of consumers and governments trusting, valuing and supporting the private P&C insurance industry. It champions key issues and helps educate consumers on how best to protect their homes, cars, businesses and properties.
P&C insurance touches the lives of nearly every Canadian and plays a critical role in keeping businesses safe and the Canadian economy strong. It employs more than 118,000 Canadians, pays $6.7 billion in taxes and has a total premium base of $48 billion.
For media releases and more information, visit IBC’s Media Centre at www.ibc.ca. Follow IBC on Twitter@InsuranceBureau or like us on Facebook. If you have a question about home, auto or business insurance, contact IBC’s Consumer Information Centre at 1-844-2ask-IBC.
If you require more information, IBC spokespeople are available to discuss the details in this media release.
SOURCE Insurance Bureau of Canada
TORONTO, June 1, 2015 /CNW/ – Four members of the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that sets out the terms for cooperation and exchange of information across provincial and territorial jurisdictions simpler and more effective, announced Chair Patrick Déry today.
The remaining CCIR members are expected to join their counterparts in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec and sign on to this new MOU in the coming months.
“CCIR members represent every province and territory, and it’s in all our interests to work more closely to ensure that we can cooperate and share information on Solvency Supervision and Market Conduct of Regulated Entities,” said Patrick Déry. “As a result, today we are signing a comprehensive MOU that will formalize information sharing and address issues like risk surveillance, consistent handling of consumer complaints, commercial practices and protection of confidential information.”
The CCIR signatories have agreed to share information needed to coordinate regulation of insurance companies that carry on business in more than one province of territory. The MOU also provides specific protocols for sharing of confidential information.
All provinces and territories conduct investigations into consumer complaints about insurance practices. But the MOU will also allow jurisdictions to share in broader market and risk analysis.
About the CCIR:
The Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators is a national association of insurance regulators that traces its roots back to 1914. The mandate of the CCIR is to support an efficient and effective insurance regulatory system in Canada to serve the public interest.
SOURCE Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators (CCIR)
For further information: Media Contact: Greg Dickson, (For English media – Vancouver), 604 660-3905; Sylvain Théberge, (For Francophone media – Quebec City), 514 940-2176
Two recent Nova Scotia decisions have clarified the issue of limitation periods in disability insurance policies and “rolling” limitation periods.
THORTON V. RBC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2014 NSSC 215
In 1998, Unum denied Thornton’s application for disability benefits under a group policy issued by Unum (which RBC later assumed responsibility for). In January, 2008, Thornton started an action against Unum as the disability insurer who provided benefits to employees of Volvo Canada. However, the pleadings were never served.
Fast forward to 2012; Thornton filed an amended pleading, replacing Unum with RBC because RBC had assumed Unum’s liability for the disability benefits. RBC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing (in part) that the applicable limitation period had expired.
Justice Michael Wood referred to cases from Ontario and New Brunswick considering insurance policies for which the limitation period was said to run from the date on which the cause of action arose. In interpreting such policies, some cases had found that there was a “rolling” limitation period, which started afresh each time a monthly payment was not made as the cause of action arose each time a payment was not made.
The policy before Justice Wood provided that an insured could not start a legal action more than three years after the time proof of claim was required, which was stated to be no more than 90 days after the end of the elimination period. The elimination period was defined in the policy as 180 days following the first day of disability.
The language of the policy, therefore, did not create a rolling limitation period. Justice Wood held that policies that trigger the beginning of the limitation period with a defined date which does not recur every month do not create a rolling limitation period. In order to trigger the beginning of the limitation period for such policies, it is necessary to have a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits.
Justice Wood found there was a clear and unambiguous denial of Thornton’s request for disability benefits in June 1998, which commenced the three year limitation period and, therefore, the proceedings had to be started no later than 2002.
Finally, the Nova Scotia Limitation of Actions Act gives the Court discretion to extend a limitation period for up to four years. However, even if granted, the four-year extension up to 2006 would not be sufficient to save the action which had been commenced in 2008. Justice Wood found that Thornton’s claim was barred by the expiry of the limitation period eight years prior and dismissed Thornton’s action.
Following Thornton, RBC brought a motion for summary judgment in Thompson v. RBC Life Insurance Company, 2014 NSSC 434. RBC sought to dismiss Thompson’s claims under a group disability insurance policy on the basis the limitation period in the policy had expired. The policy stated that a claimant could start a legal action “up to 1 year from the time the proof of claim is required”. Proof of claim had to be provided at the latest 1 year and 90 days after the beginning of disability. In Thompson’s case, proof of claim was absolutely required by December 8, 2004, and therefore the latest her claim could be started was December 8, 2005.
The first issue before Justice Jamie Campbell was when benefits had been clearly denied. Thompson’s claim was initially denied in January 2004. She appealed and RBC again denied her claim in June 2004. In November 2004, Thompson provided new medical information to RBC and her claim was reopened. Finally, on November 17, 2005, RBC wrote to Thompson denying her claim yet again.
Each time RBC had denied Thompson’s claim they had informed her that their determination was “final” – although she had a right to appeal each time. Despite this, Justice Campbell held that the word “final” had “not been used and disregarded with such frequency that it can reasonably be said to have lost its meaning”.
Thompson had understood the denial was “final” in 2005 but was unaware she could bring a claim against RBC without having to pay a lawyer upfront (she didn’t know about contingency fee arrangements until 2008). She retained a lawyer in 2008, and then retained a different lawyer in April 2011, and the action against RBC was finally commenced on May 22, 2011 – nearly six years after the denial. Justice Campbell commented that Thompson had known full well she had a legal right to bring a claim against RBC and a person cannot avoid a limitation period by ignoring it or not noticing it.
Following Justice Wood’s decision in Thornton, Justice Campbell held that a clear denial had occurred on November 17, 2005 and Thompson’s claim had been filed well beyond the one year from November 17, 2005 and well beyond the four-year extension period (see above).
The second issue before Justice Campbell was Thompson’s argument that the limitations language in the policy was “unintelligible” and therefore the limitation period should be 6 years as set out in the Limitations of Actions Act. The policy read:
WHAT ARE THE TIME LIMITS FOR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
You can start legal action regarding your claim 60 days after proof of claim has been given and up to 1 year from the time proof of claim is required.
Thompson argued that the time limitation in the policy was “permissive not mandatory” because of the word “can”. Thompson attempted to distinguish Thornton by arguing the policy in Thornton had read “cannot start any legal action…more than 3 years after the time proof of claim is required”.
Justice Campbell held that accepting Thompson’s interpretation would render the provision meaningless, and her argument ignored the words “TIME LIMITS” and “up to”. He concluded the policy’s limitation period was clear, it had been missed, and dismissed Thompson’s claim.
The limitation period will depend on the specific language of the policy. The case does not decide whether there is a rolling limitation for Section B claims or whether in fact a Nova Scotia Court will accept the concept of rolling limitation periods in disability policies but does clarify when there will not be a rolling limitation.
Some policies which provide for periodic payments may be interpreted to create a rolling limitation period, which starts anew each month that the benefit allegedly payable is not paid. Other policies define the limitation period with reference to a defined date, which does not recur every month, and, therefore, do not create a rolling limitation period.
In order to trigger the limitation period for such policies, the insurer must clearly and unequivocally deny benefits to the insured. Finally, a review of the limitations language in your policies may be necessary to ensure it is understandable and a defined date is calculable.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Article by Patricia Mitchell, Tyana R. Caplan and Michelle Chai
The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) is warning consumers that Freedom Insurance Company is not licensed to do insurance business in Ontario.
The regulator reminds consumers that if they purchase insurance from insurers that are not licensed in the province, they are not protected under the Insurance Act and the regulations that govern Ontario’s licensed insurance companies and agents.
FSCO’s website contains a list of all insurance companies and agents licensed to do business in Ontario.
An Ontario insurance agent or broker can provide information and advice on the risks involved with purchasing different insurance products.