Author Archives: admin

s. 44 of the SABS in the One-Two Punch Claim Handling Technique — Why I Believe Insurance Companies Do Not Pay

By: Ninette Ibanez Silverio Pereira March 2023

In Ontario, auto insurers use s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) as the legal basis for requiring the insured to attend an Insurer’s Examination(IE). It plays an integral part in handling insurance claims that make it difficult for injured victims to receive the benefits of their insurance policies.

Insurer’s Examination (IE) is a process during the claim handling where the insured is examined by another health practitioner who has no duty of care to the insured and is hired by the insurer.

Before I proceed, please know that I am not a lawyer. I cannot provide legal advice. And any of my words should not be taken as legal advice.

However, if you are paying for auto insurance like me, whether or not you have been entangled in legal proceedings, s. 44 seems a mystery — and I have questions I will be sharing.

Please read along, pause, then consider whether you should have questions too.

One-Two Punch Claim Handling Technique

It is carried out by denying the insured payment or benefit (first punch), immediately followed by requiring the insured to attend an IE (second punch).

But wait, SABS stipulates strict requirements. SABS is the regulation under the Insurance Act about our entitlements to the auto insurance policies we are mandated by the government to pay.

What Does SABS Say When an Insurer Denies or Refuses Payments or Benefits?

When giving notices of denials of benefits, depending on the type of benefit, there is a timeline restriction, typically within ten business days after the insurer receives the claim. And the medical and any other reasons for its denial, among other things, should be given. See subsections 36(4)(7), 37(4)(6), 38(8)(14), 42(3)(13), 43(2) and 45(3)(5) of the SABS.

The timeline requirement — sounds like it is straightforward. But sometimes it is not. If the insurer sent it by regular mail, how do you calculate the ten business days? Subsection 64(2) will help you. And, if for an unusual reason, you did not receive the letter, ask or find out whether your insurer informed you beforehand that you should expect to receive a response to your claim within ten business days — it is the regulation.

The medical and any other reasons — what does it mean? With this, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) provides some assistance. At the very least, it should include specific details about the insured’s medical condition. It should be clear and sufficient enough to allow an unsophisticated person to make an informed decision to either accept or dispute the insurer’s decision — requiring the insured to attend an IE (M.B. v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2017 CanLII 87160 (ON LAT)). It is contextual and turns on the unique facts in each case.

What Does SABS Say When an Insurer Requires IE Attendance?

Subsection 44(1) dictates that an Insurer’s Examination (IE) should not be required more often than is reasonable and necessary. Subsection 44(5)(a) stipulates that if the insurer requires IE attendance, it should give the insured person (claimant) notice about the medical and any other reasons for the examination, among other things. The regulation strictly requires that the insurer give its medical and any other reasons. Otherwise, the insurer is not performing its obligation according to the law.

READ MORE

ADDENDUM:

The highest court in Canada, the SCC, should acknowledge and recognize the public importance of the following two main issues raised in Silverio Pereira v Aviva:

 [i] the insurers’ notice obligations in the SABS (question of law) and

[ii] the Tribunal’s inconsistent or lack of correct examinations of insurers’ duty of notice and its process breaching the rules of procedural fairness.

Reforming FSCO

June 12, 14, 2013: Reforming FSCO – IS THERE A CURE FOR REGULATORY DISEQUILIBRIUM?

Read FAIR’s speech at the seminar: Reforming FSCO Speech June 2013

FAIR Presents views to the Ontario Standing Committee on Auto Insurance

On April 17, 2013 FAIR presented our views to the Ontario Standing Committee on Auto Insurance at Queen’s Park. To view: FAIR at the Standing Committee – Automobile Insurance April 17 2013

Tammy Kirkwood Submission to Standing Committee April 17 2013

Greg Smith Submission to Standing Committee April 17 2013

Bill Wilson Submission to Standing Commitee April 17 2013

 

Is the IBC a consumer organization?

Think the IBC is a consumer organization? – check out who the members are: http://www.ibc.ca/en/Need_More_Info/Links/members-insurer-reinsurer.asp

Consumers have noticed the large advertising placed around the Minister of Finance’s buildings by the insurance industry’s lobby group, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC). Clearly there are abundant funds for advertising while catastrophically injured accident victims have had their claims delayed and denied by their insurer….Letter to Minister Sousa regarding CAT Round Table April 12 2013

IBC media at the Minister of Finance Building
IBC media at the Minister of Finance Building

Alliance Presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance & Economic Affairs

Alliance Presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance & Economic Affairs Mar 22, 2013

Personal Journey to Independence – The Tina Manousos Story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKavsjLi-PU Personal Journey to Independence – The Tina Manousos Story

The Catastrophic Impairment Panel Recommendations – Stakeholder Round Table Discussions on March 15, 2013

Catastrophic Clarity by Dr. Harold Becker

http://torontopersonalinjury.blogspot.ca/2013/03/changing-definition-of-catastrophic.html

OTLA MPP Advisor Newsletter March 2013

For an overview of the proposed changes: The Anticipated Changes to the Definition of ‘Catastrophic Impairment’ and it’s Expected Impact by Darcy Merkur http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C9RHjY2Pcs&list=UU_u7OG5BKpl2-5imsCmyXkA

Read FAIR’s Letter to Minister Sousa Feb 28 2013 about the CAT Panel recommendations.

Final FAIR submission – Definition of CAT August 10 12

Superintendent’s Report on the Definition of Catastrophic Impairment in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule Dec 15 2011

The Quality of the Independent Medical Examination

Open letter to Stakeholders March 19 2013

…..One way to shine a light on auto insurer fee-for-service assessment ‘mills’ would be for the Ontario auto insurers to annually disclose to the public the total amount each assessor has been paid.  By making this information transparent the public would be alerted to the potential for bias when medico-legal assessors become completely beholden to the private auto insurers for the lion’s share of their annual income. Currently in Ontario, this information is not disclosed to the public. The bias inherent in this secretive system is obvious.  British Columbia’s public system has disclosed this information for years. Why aren’t Ontario’s private insurers doing the same?……FAIR is asking that the same disclosure of information practice be adopted here in Ontario. The benefits of greater transparency to Ontario’s injured auto insurer claimants who are forced to submit to these often shoddy insurer assessments are obvious……..

Open Letter to additional Stakeholders March 11 2013

This letter is to apologize for our oversight in not copying you our “Open Letter” (scroll down) on the subject of “secret cautions” in the context of Ontario’s auto insurance ‘independent’ medical examinations (IME/IE). FAIR believes this is a matter affecting many of Ontario’s health regulatory Colleges. We believe that both the OMA and the OPA have an important role to play in the matter since their respective positions on the issue of “secret cautions” of IME/IE preferred vendors of auto insurer commissioned assessments would carry significant weight. Both the OPA and OMA can influence Ontario health policy and practices in a way that FAIR cannot……So shouldn’t these assessors come as advertised by the auto insurers – highly qualified, completely impartial and well-respected by their licensing body? Is it fair for auto insurers, FSCO, the Colleges and the preferred insurer medico-legal assessors to continue to hide “secret cautions” related to previous flawed insurer assessments from the vulnerable accident victims who are forced to submit to these assessments?

An Open Letter to Ontario’s Auto Insurance Stakeholders March 4 2013

……it is unfair to require injured claimants to submit to insurer commissioned medico-legal assessments conducted by assessors who have been “secretly cautioned” for previous substandard assessments. Some health professionals doing these assessments in the Ontario auto insurance sector have been cautioned by their licensing body (College) more than once – but are not required to disclose these cautions to the subjects of their assessments. To make the matter even worse – the Ontario Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task has recommended to FSCO – and through FSCO to the Finance Minister – a regulatory change allowing a $500 fine to be levied against any injured claimant who fails to submit to a scheduled insurer assessment (IME/IE). If injured claimants are to be coerced into submitting to insurer commissioned IME/IEs in this way – then the insurers’ preferred assessors shouldn’t be hiding “secret cautions” from the now captive subjects of these ‘independent’ assessments……It is upon the outcome of these assessments that insurance adjusters base their decisions as to whether or not to provide treatment benefits (and/or other policy benefits) as spelled out in the accident victim’s policy. So it is important that…..

An Open Letter to Ontario’s Auto Insurance Stakeholders Feb 19 2013

Sent to:  Kathleen Wynne, Premier; Andrea Howarth, Leader NDP; Tim Hudak, Leader Conservative Party; C. Sousa, Minister of Finance; Financial Services Commission of Ontario; Insurance Bureau of Canada; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; Health Professions Appeal and Review Board; Alliance of Community & Medical Rehab Providers; Ontario Trial Lawyers Association; Canadian Society of Medical Examiners; Association of Independent Assessment Centers; Deb Mathews, Minister of Health; J. Singh, MPP, NDP; Alan Shanoff,  Toronto Sun

…….FAIR would like to know what each of the stakeholders think of this “three strikes” rule as a first step toward purging the rogue assessors from the Ontario auto insurance system. This rule would apply evenly to insurer assessors and treatment provider assessors alike. Do you support this idea – or do you oppose it? If you oppose a three strikes rule – why? What alternative solution for the substandard assessment problem do you have to offer? ……So FAIR would appreciate a timely reply in order that we, together with the other stakeholders,  can all move forward in a collaborative effort to clean up the Ontario IME system and make sure that auto accident victims are treated fairly and with dignity.

Ontario needs to crack down on independent medical examiners: Accident victims’ group

Source: Daily News | 2012-12-10
An advocacy organization representing auto accident victims is taking issue with some of the recommendations of the recently released report from the auto fraud task force in Ontario.

Letter to the Editor: Independent medical examinations provide “necessary check and balance”

Source: Daily News | 2012-12-20
Editor’s Note: The following letter to the editor is in response to an article that appeared on Canadian Underwriter’s website on Dec. 10, 2012: Ontario needs to crack down on independent medical examiners: Accident victims’ group                                                              ________________________________________________________________

Read FAIR’s January 10, 2013 letter to Dwight Duncan, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance of Ontario regarding the quality of Independent Medical Exams for Ontario’s accident victims and the proposed UDAP sanctions: Letter to Minister Duncan Jan 10 13-1

Read FAIR’s December 5, 2012 letter to the Minister of Health regarding the quality of Independent Medical Examinations here: Letter to Minister of Health Dec 5 2012.doc

Read the College of Physicians and Surgeons December 2012 policy Medical Expert: Reports and Testimony here: http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies/policies/default.aspx?id=7180

Read the Aug 17, 2012 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Consultation: Medical Experts – Reports and Testimony Policy.  We felt compelled to provide comment on the conduct expected of physicians who examine auto accident victims in this submission.

Visit our Independent Medical Examinations page for further info.

Update on the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Anti-Fraud Task Force Final Report

Read FAIR concerns about recent changes to legislation based on the Anti-Fraud Task Force Report here:    FAIR Comment on SABS Regulatory Amendments February 1 2013

Read FAIR response to Anti-Fraud Task Force Final report:
FAIR response to Anti-Fraud Task Force November 2012

August 2012 FAIR submission to the Anti-Fraud Task Force here about proposed changes: FAIR Submission to Anti-Fraud Task Force Status Update August 27 2012

Read the Anti-Fraud Task Force Final Report here: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/autoinsurance/final-report.html