Remember, legitimate telemarketers have nothing to hide

Read more

Severe summer storm in Alberta & Saskatchewan causes close to $65 million in insured damage

Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reports a severe storm that swept through Southern Alberta and Saskatchewan during the third week of July has resulted in nearly $65 million in insured damage according to Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. (CatIQ).

From July 15 – 16, a low pressure system caused heavy rainfall, large hail, and localized flash flooding in parts of southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. This system caused significant hail damage in Lethbridge, AB and localized flooding in Calgary, AB and Arbour Lake, AB. This storm also brought over 60mm of rain to Swift Current, SK in less than one hour.

“This is yet another example of severe weather events causing extensive damage in our region,” said Bill Adams, Vice-President, Western and Pacific, IBC. “This has been an active summer across the Prairies and it reinforces the need for Canadians to understand their insurance policies and to have an emergency preparedness plan for when bad weather strikes.”

Most damage was reported to have occurred in Alberta. Damage to homes and autos in that province, largely due to hail, resulted in upwards of $59 million in claims alone. This storm follows a previous system that hit the Prairies a week earlier which resulted in more than $48 million in insured damage.

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 in Canada. 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 120,000 Canadians, pays $8.2 billion in taxes and has a total premium base of $49 billion.

For media releases and more information, visit IBC’s Media Centre at www.ibc.ca.. If you have a question about home, auto or business insurance, contact IBC’s Consumer Information Centre at 1-844-2ask-IBC.

About CatIQ
Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. (CatIQ) delivers detailed analytical and meteorological information on Canadian natural and man-made catastrophes. Through its online subscription-based platform, CatIQ combines comprehensive insured loss indices and other related information to better serve the needs of the insurance and reinsurance industries, public sector and other stakeholders. To learn more, visit www.catiq.com.

If you require more information, IBC spokespeople are available to discuss the details in this media release.

SOURCE Insurance Bureau of Canada

$65,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for “Persistent Myofascial Pain”

Today’s guest post comes from B.C. injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a chronic back injury.

In today’s case (Cirillo v. Mai) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2012 collision where her vehicle was struck and pushed into oncoming traffic where she was struck a second time.  The Plaintiff suffered a chronic back injury with symptoms continuing at the time of trial and expected to likely persist into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $65,000 Mr. Justice Hinkson provided the following reasons:

[41]     Dr. Khalfan commented in her report of April 20, 2016 that:

a)       The plaintiff’s diagnosis at that time was persistent myofascial pain as a result of the Collision.

b)       The plaintiff’s range of motion in her spine was good, other than her spinal extension, which demonstrated significant impairments.

c)       The plaintiff had first received trigger point injection treatment on January 26, 2016. Other than experiencing some short-term flare-ups in pain for after treatment, the plaintiff responded well to the injections, and reported 50% improvement in her pain by the fifth treatment.

d)       By the sixth trigger point injection on April 12, 2016, the plaintiff had plateaued with that treatment, and decided to pursue ultrasound-guided injection treatment, which would require a series of diagnostic tests.

e)       Because the plaintiff responded well to trigger point injections, Dr. Khalfan was optimistic that the plaintiff would continue to experience improvement with ultrasound-guided injection treatment. Dr. Khalfan expected that the plaintiff would experience appreciable improvement of her symptoms in the future, but was unable to predict with precision the degree to which the plaintiff would recover.

f)        Given the fact that the plaintiff has experienced pain for years after the Collision, it is unlikely that she will experience full recovery of all symptoms. Dr. Khalfan opined that it was likely that the plaintiff would have ongoing pain well into the future and possibly indefinitely.

g)       Dr. Khalfan recommended a focused strengthening and stabilizing exercise program as a possible management tool for mitigating the plaintiff’s limitations and pain…

[92]         The authorities relied upon by the plaintiff are all cases where the injured parties suffered from chronic pain. Although I accept that Ms. Cirillo continues to experience back pain, I am unable to accept that it rises to the level of chronic pain as that term is used in the cases that she relies upon. While she may experience the improvement in her pain that is hoped for by Dr. Khalfan, I do not regard that as likely. I consider that the injuries and ongoing difficulties that she experiences are more consistent with the difficulties described in the awards cited by the defendant, with the exception of the loss of her ability to participate in the sport that she pursued with such devotion and considerable success before the Collisions.

[93]          As I have already found, it is unlikely that she would have been able to continue with her level of activity in the sport for much longer than she did, but the choice to do so was taken from her by her injuries from the Collisions, and this, in my view, elevates her damages from the range that can be derived from the cases relied upon by the defendant. I therefore assess her non-pecuniary damages at $65,000.

$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries and Headaches

Today’s guest post comes from B.C. injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken

Adding to this site’s soft tissue injury non-pecuniary damage database, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries with associated headaches.

In this week’s case (Picton v. Fredericks) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 vehicle collision that the Defendant admitted responsibility for.  The Plaintiff suffered various injuries which were ongoing at the time of trial and expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Mr. Justice Williams made the following findings:

[37]         I conclude that Ms. Picton did sustain injuries in the course of the motor vehicle accident and that substantial discomfort has persisted for her. I am not minded to accept that all of the discomfort and all of the lost time is attributable to the accident. I also conclude that, while there was not insignificant discomfort, its effect upon her ability to do her usual activities and to engage in physical activities was significant but not to the extent she seemed to suggest. For example, I am inclined to accept that, from time to time, she engaged in activities such as golfing and snowboarding. I also believe that she continued to pursue her fitness regime, although in a somewhat diminished way.

[38]         I am satisfied that Ms. Picton sustained soft tissue injuries in the accident, resulting in neck, shoulder, and back pain and headaches. The neck, shoulder, and back pain have not resolved but continue, albeit less intensely. I am satisfied that she continues to deal with headaches; the frequency may not be as great as she contends, but I accept that she does occasionally experience very significant discomfort from those headaches. I also accept the evidence before me that the Botox treatments she receives are substantially effective in enabling her to deal with the discomfort of those headaches…

[51]         In summary, I conclude that Ms. Picton has suffered pain and discomfort from the accident, that it has impacted upon various aspects of her life, and that those effects continue. I am also satisfied that the ongoing Botox treatment is a meaningful contributor to mitigating the discomfort she experiences. I accept that the effects of the accident impacted upon her work and social life.

[52]         That said, I also recognize that there were other factors at play, including the psychological distress that she has experienced separate and apart from the accident. I find no basis to attribute that to the defendant’s conduct, and, accordingly, the effect of that cannot be included in the analysis of what award of damages will properly compensate the plaintiff for her pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life as resulting from the defendant’s negligence…

[58]         As stated above, my conclusion is that the injuries resulting from the accident had a moderately serious impact upon Ms. Picton’s life. She has experienced pain and suffering, and her enjoyment of life has been compromised in a number of ways. I also conclude that the effects of the collision are not the sole cause for her difficulties; her pre-existing psychological problems have had a real role in causing those. Ms. Picton’s situation is in keeping with the “crumbling skull” rule as noted in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 SCR 458, at paras. 34–35. The damages that this Court awards must reflect that distinction. The defendant should not be required to compensate Ms. Picton for effects she would have experienced anyway.

[59]         As well, my award is informed by my view that she has, fortunately, by availing herself of the Botox treatment program, been able to find a way to substantially overcome the discomfort of headache. I intend to provide an award of damages for her future care that will provide for that relief, going forward. Accordingly, I expect that her discomfort will be quite significantly relieved.

[60]         In the result, I find that a fit and appropriate award of damages under this head is $85,000.

Severe summer storm in the Prairies causes more than $48 million in insured damage

Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reports a severe storm that swept through Alberta,Saskatchewan and Manitoba during the second week of July has resulted in more than $48 million in insured damage according to Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. (CatIQ).

From July 8 – 11, a low pressure system caused severe thunderstorms in the Prairies. The storms produced strong winds, hail, lightning, heavy rainfall, and funnel clouds. This system also caused significant flooding in Estevan, SK and produced a brief tornado touchdown in Humboldt, SK on July 10.

“Severe storms have been happening more often and with greater intensity across the Prairies,” said Bill Adams, Vice-President, Western and Pacific, IBC. “It is important that Canadians understand their insurance policies and what’s covered. It’s also essential to have an emergency preparedness plan and know what to do before, during and after bad weather strikes.”

Most property damage were reported to have occurred in Saskatchewan. The most severe isolated thunderstorm cell over Estefan produced up to 130mm of rain in a short period of time. The heavy rains overwhelmed the local storm water systems causing streets to flood and sewers to backup.

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 in Canada. 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 120,000 Canadians, pays $8.2 billion in taxes and has a total premium base of $49 billion.

For media releases and more information, visit IBC’s Media Centre at www.ibc.ca.. If you have a question about home, auto or business insurance, contact IBC’s Consumer Information Centre at 1-844-2ask-IBC.

About CatIQ
Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc. (CatIQ) delivers detailed analytical and meteorological information on Canadian natural and man-made catastrophes. Through its online subscription-based platform, CatIQ combines comprehensive insured loss indices and other related information to better serve the needs of the insurance and reinsurance industries, public sector and other stakeholders. To learn more, visit www.catiq.com.

If you require more information, IBC spokespeople are available to discuss the details in this media release.

SOURCE Insurance Bureau of Canada

ICBC’s “Two Hats” Derails Litigation Privilege Claim

Today’s guest post comes from B.C. injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, ordering ICBC to produce and investigative report and video.

In today’s case (Oates v. Burton) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.   After being represented by a lawyer the Plaintiff applied for disability benefits from ICBC and shortly after ICBC ordered surveillance.

The Plaintiff, in the context of the injury lawsuit, sought production of the surveillance and the investigator’s report but ICBC refused to produce this arguing it was privileged being created for the dominant purpose of use in the (at the time contemplated) injury lawsuit.  Mr. Justice Voith disagreed finding the report was likely created for dual purposes including investigating the Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits.  In ordering production the Court provided the following reasons:

]         This case turns, as is generally the case, on the second or more “challenging” question; Raj at para. 12. That “challenging” question is whether Item 4.3 was generated for the dominant purpose of use in litigation.

[24]         I return to the narrow and focused chronology that I emphasized earlier. On August 23, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel, more than ten months after he had first advised the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that he had been retained, sought an extension of the plaintiff’s temporary total disability (“TTD”) or Part 7 benefits. On September 5, 2013, or less than two weeks later, Item 4.3 was created. Almost immediately thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel was contacted and the plaintiff’s TTD benefits were extended. Approximately nine months later, the plaintiff’s Notice of Civil Claim was filed.

[25]         The plaintiff argues that at least one purpose that underlay the creation of Item 4.3 was the defendants’ desire to investigate or assess the plaintiff’s TTD benefits claim. Furthermore, and importantly, the plaintiff argues that it was necessary for the defendant to expressly address the relationship between the plaintiff’s TTD benefits claim and the creation of Item 4.3…

[31]         I do not say that a deponent, who prepares an affidavit that is intended to support a claim for litigation privilege, must address and negate all other potential or notional purposes, however remote, for which that document might have been prepared. In this case, however, the prospect or likelihood that Item 4.3 was created to address, at least in significant measure, the plaintiff’s TTD benefits claim is not fanciful or speculative. The preparation of Item 4.3 is bracketed, on the one side, by the ten months from when the defendants learned that the plaintiff had retained counsel and by eight months, on the other side, by when the Notice of Civil Claim was ultimately filed.

[32]         Conversely, Item 4.3 was prepared almost immediately on the heels of the defendants learning that the plaintiff was seeking an extension of her TTD benefits. In such circumstances, I do consider that there was a positive obligation on the part of the defendants’ deponent, the adjuster who oversaw the matter, to expressly and directly address the relationship of Item 4.3 and the plaintiff’s claim for TTD benefits, and the extent to which that claim gave rise to the creation of Item 4.3. That failure, in these circumstances, undermines the defendant’s affidavit evidence, calls into question the dominant purpose for the creation of Item 4.3, and is fatal to the defendants’ claim for litigation privilege over Item 4.3.

[33]         This conclusion is reinforced by the affidavit evidence of the adjuster on this central issue – evidence that the Master in the Reasons accurately described as “not particularly persuasive”. Specifically, the adjuster in her affidavit said:

… By the summer of 2013, the medical information seemed to indicate substantial recovery but with some partial disability. To get a better understanding of her function, I hired a private investigator to review the Plaintiff’s level of activity. My intention on retaining the investigator was to use the results of the investigation to hopefully assist with the defence of the claim and to assist counsel to prepare for litigation not yet commenced but reasonably anticipated.

[34]         Accordingly I allow the plaintiff’s appeal, and I order that Item 4.3 be produced to the plaintiff within seven days of these reasons being released. The plaintiff is to have the costs of both this appeal and of her earlier application.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from ILSTV

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest