Beasley and Scott v. Barrand, 2010 ONSC 2095 (S.C.J.)
This case involves the interpretation of the new requirements for experts pursuant to Rule 53.
The tort defendants in this trial sought to call evidence from three doctors who had assessed the plaintiff on behalf of his accident benefits carrier. The defendants made efforts to have the doctors brought into compliance with the new Rule 53.03 by having them sign an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty.
Justice Moore refused to allow the doctors to testify given that they could not comply with Rule 53.03. They were retained by an insurer that was not before the court, were not treating physicians and their instructions were not clear from the evidence. Justice Moore Held:
I am not to be heard to state that experts retained by accident benefits insurers cannot give opinion evidence in a tort action; rather, I say that such experts should first comply with Rule 53.03. I say “should” for there may be cases where that is not possible and then the court may consider relieving against non-compliance to ensure a fair adjudication of the issues upon their merits but this is not one of those cases.
This case places great constraints on the ability of the defence to call evidence with respect to the plaintiff’s injuries. It imposes a high hurdle for the defendants in order to call evidence relevant to the plaintiff’s injuries. Perhaps the accident benefits assessors could be called as fact witnesses which would mean r. 53.03 would not apply. It appears that this would be an area that would benefit from appellant intervention.
Kamis, 28 Oktober 2010
Rabu, 27 Oktober 2010
Before hiring a lawyer...
The GlobeandMail.com has an interesting article entitled Before hiring a lawyer, be sure to do your homework, by Tony Wilson.
You can read it at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/your-business/start/tony-wilson/before-hiring-a-lawyer-be-sure-to-do-your-homework/article1771820/
You can read it at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/your-business/start/tony-wilson/before-hiring-a-lawyer-be-sure-to-do-your-homework/article1771820/
Senin, 25 Oktober 2010
Statistics from our consumer advocacy hotline...
We received nearly 13,000 calls last month to our free hotline for Washington residents with problems or questions involving insurance. Along the way, we helped consumers recover $776,937 in delayed/denied claims and similar problems.
We have experts in a wide variety of insurance matters, and we can often help resolve difficulties getting claims paid, help you find health coverage, etc.
We're not an insurer, agent or broker. We're the state agency that regulates the insurance industry in Washington state. We tend to get between 11,000 and 15,000 calls a month.
Got a problem or question? Give us a call: 1-800-562-6900 or e-mail us at AskMike@oic.wa.gov.
We have experts in a wide variety of insurance matters, and we can often help resolve difficulties getting claims paid, help you find health coverage, etc.
We're not an insurer, agent or broker. We're the state agency that regulates the insurance industry in Washington state. We tend to get between 11,000 and 15,000 calls a month.
Got a problem or question? Give us a call: 1-800-562-6900 or e-mail us at AskMike@oic.wa.gov.
Jumat, 22 Oktober 2010
Storm headed for western WA, rain and high winds Saturday night and Sunday
The National Weather Service has issued a "special weather statement" for much of western Washington late this weekend. From it:
Washington residents with insurance questions or problems can also call our consumer advocacy staff at 1-800-562-6900. We'll try to help.
A potent storm will slam into the region Saturday night and Sunday, resulting in locally heavy rain and strong winds, especially on the coast. Another blast of strong winds impacting a larger part of the area is possible on Monday.If you experience damage and have insurance questions, try our winter weather information, which covers common insurance questions about everything from sinking boats to fallen trees to power outages.
Washington residents with insurance questions or problems can also call our consumer advocacy staff at 1-800-562-6900. We'll try to help.
Kamis, 21 Oktober 2010
Cease and desist order issued against Choice Home Warranty
Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler today issued a cease and desist order against CHW Group, Inc., doing business as Choice Home Warranty and http://www.choicehomewarranty.com/.
The company is believed to have sold at least 92 home warranty service contracts to Washington residents. The contracts cover repair or replacement on major systems and appliances in the person's home, and promise that Choice Home Warrant will pay for repair or replacement of those that fail.
The problem: the company isn't authorized to transact insurance in Washington state. Nor is it registered here as a service contract provider.
Kreidler ordered the company to mail a copy of the order to all Washington home warranty service contract customers. The company must also report to the state how much it's collected in premiums from Washington consumers.
The company has the right to demand a hearing. The order takes effect today.
We'll post a link to the order shortly.
Updated: As promised, here's the link.
The company is believed to have sold at least 92 home warranty service contracts to Washington residents. The contracts cover repair or replacement on major systems and appliances in the person's home, and promise that Choice Home Warrant will pay for repair or replacement of those that fail.
The problem: the company isn't authorized to transact insurance in Washington state. Nor is it registered here as a service contract provider.
Kreidler ordered the company to mail a copy of the order to all Washington home warranty service contract customers. The company must also report to the state how much it's collected in premiums from Washington consumers.
The company has the right to demand a hearing. The order takes effect today.
We'll post a link to the order shortly.
Updated: As promised, here's the link.
The Supreme Court of Canada on a Duty to Defend - part 3
Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada in Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 S.C.C. 33., helpfully affirmed that CGL insurance policies are most typically written in three sections, being (i) coverage, (ii) exclusions and (iii) exceptions to the exclusions.
Within the first section, the onus is on the insured to show that the pleadings fall within the initial grant of coverage.
The next section, exclusions, should be read in light of the initial grant of coverage and do not create coverage in themselves. Exclusions only preclude coverage when the claim otherwise falls within the initial grant of coverage.
The third section, exceptions to exclusions, also do not create coverage but bring an otherwise excluded claim back within coverage where the claim fell within the initial grant of coverage in the first place.
Justice Rothstein concludes that the pleadings reveal a possibility of “property damage” and also sufficiently allege an “accident” such that the claim in the pleadings falls within the initial grant of coverage provided by the policy. The insurer, Lombard, then argued that the “work performed” exclusion precludes coverage. Lombard argued that there was no “subcontractor exception” to the exception and therefore work performed by subcontractors was also excluded. However, Justice Rothstein concluded that the exclusion did not clearly exclude subcontractors’ work and that there is a possibility of coverage so that the duty to defend is triggered.
This decision helpfully sets out the law in this complex area in a clear and succinct way. Hopefully this will help eliminate some of the confusion.
Within the first section, the onus is on the insured to show that the pleadings fall within the initial grant of coverage.
The next section, exclusions, should be read in light of the initial grant of coverage and do not create coverage in themselves. Exclusions only preclude coverage when the claim otherwise falls within the initial grant of coverage.
The third section, exceptions to exclusions, also do not create coverage but bring an otherwise excluded claim back within coverage where the claim fell within the initial grant of coverage in the first place.
Justice Rothstein concludes that the pleadings reveal a possibility of “property damage” and also sufficiently allege an “accident” such that the claim in the pleadings falls within the initial grant of coverage provided by the policy. The insurer, Lombard, then argued that the “work performed” exclusion precludes coverage. Lombard argued that there was no “subcontractor exception” to the exception and therefore work performed by subcontractors was also excluded. However, Justice Rothstein concluded that the exclusion did not clearly exclude subcontractors’ work and that there is a possibility of coverage so that the duty to defend is triggered.
This decision helpfully sets out the law in this complex area in a clear and succinct way. Hopefully this will help eliminate some of the confusion.
Jumat, 15 Oktober 2010
Which insurers sell individual insurance plans in Washington?
- Asuris Northwest Health
- Group Health Cooperative
- Group Health Options
- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest
- KPS Health Plans
- Lifewise Health Plan of Washington
- Premera BlueCross Individual Plans
- Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon
- Regence BlueShield
- Time Insurance Company
Kreidler orders Regence to cover children
Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler this morning ordered Regence BlueShield this morning to stop illegally denying insurance to children, effective immediately.
“Regence is in clear violation of state law that prohibits insurers from denying insurance to people on the basis of age,” said Kreidler. “I was shocked and deeply disappointed when Regence announced its decision last week to stop selling insurance to kids.”
The Affordable Care Act requires all health plans to cover kids with pre-existing conditions. However, to accommodate the insurance industry’s concerns that people would only enroll their children when they became sick, the federal government let states create a special open enrollment period.
Kreidler issued an emergency rule creating a special enrollment period from Nov. 1-Dec. 15. During this time, anyone looking for an individual health plan for their families or just their children can enroll their kids without having to take a health screen.
But Regence Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in the individual market, notified Kreidler on Sept. 27 that, effective Oct. 1, it would no longer sell individual health insurance policies to kids.
Here's a link to the full press release.
Update: And here's the response from Regence, which says it was shocked and disappointed by the order. From their press release:
“Regence is in clear violation of state law that prohibits insurers from denying insurance to people on the basis of age,” said Kreidler. “I was shocked and deeply disappointed when Regence announced its decision last week to stop selling insurance to kids.”
The Affordable Care Act requires all health plans to cover kids with pre-existing conditions. However, to accommodate the insurance industry’s concerns that people would only enroll their children when they became sick, the federal government let states create a special open enrollment period.
Kreidler issued an emergency rule creating a special enrollment period from Nov. 1-Dec. 15. During this time, anyone looking for an individual health plan for their families or just their children can enroll their kids without having to take a health screen.
But Regence Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in the individual market, notified Kreidler on Sept. 27 that, effective Oct. 1, it would no longer sell individual health insurance policies to kids.
Here's a link to the full press release.
Update: And here's the response from Regence, which says it was shocked and disappointed by the order. From their press release:
It is important to stress that our eligibility changes do not apply to those insured members covered under small or large group policies. We've been very clear that we will insure kids during open enrollment periods when the child is not the sole subscriber -- and we will do so regardless of health status.
The Supreme Court of Canada on a Duty to Defend - part 2
“Leaky condominiums” have become notorious in British Columbia
The policies requireLombard to defend and indemnify Progressive Homes when Progressive is legally obligated to pay damages because of property damage caused by an occurrence or accident. Lombard refused to defend the claims and Progressive brought an application for a declaration that Lombard is under a duty to defend.
Justice Rothstein went on to declare that an insurer is required to defend a claim where the facts alleged in the pleadings, if proven to be true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured to the claim. It is irrelevant whether the allegations in the pleadings can be proven in evidence. What is required is the mere possibility that the claim falls within the insurance policy. In examining the pleadings to determine whether the claim falls within the scope of coverage, the parties to the insurance contract should not be bound by the labels selected by the plaintiff but by the true nature or substance of the claim.
Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada, reiterated some significant principles of insurance policy interpretation, including that when the language of the policy in unambiguous, the court should give effect to the clear language and should read the contract as a whole. Where the language of the insurance policy is ambiguous, courts should prefer interpretations that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties and courts should avoid interpretations that would give rise to an unrealistic result. Where these rules of construction failed to resolve an ambiguity, courts will construe the policy contra proferentem. Subsumed by the contra proferentem rule is that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly.
Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 S.C.C. 33.
The policies require
Justice Rothstein went on to declare that an insurer is required to defend a claim where the facts alleged in the pleadings, if proven to be true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured to the claim. It is irrelevant whether the allegations in the pleadings can be proven in evidence. What is required is the mere possibility that the claim falls within the insurance policy. In examining the pleadings to determine whether the claim falls within the scope of coverage, the parties to the insurance contract should not be bound by the labels selected by the plaintiff but by the true nature or substance of the claim.
Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada, reiterated some significant principles of insurance policy interpretation, including that when the language of the policy in unambiguous, the court should give effect to the clear language and should read the contract as a whole. Where the language of the insurance policy is ambiguous, courts should prefer interpretations that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties and courts should avoid interpretations that would give rise to an unrealistic result. Where these rules of construction failed to resolve an ambiguity, courts will construe the policy contra proferentem. Subsumed by the contra proferentem rule is that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses narrowly.
Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 S.C.C. 33.
Tacoma woman with history of slip-and-fall claims charged with theft
A Tacoma woman who has repeatedly claimed to have slipped and fallen in grocery stores has been charged with theft and attempted theft after claiming to have fallen in two different stores within about 15 minutes.
Brenda J. Johnson, 50, is scheduled to be arraigned today in Pierce County Superior Court. She has been charged with first-degree theft and first-degree attempted theft.
Johnson said she was near check stand No. 2 at a Tacoma Safeway store on Sept. 18, 2009 at 11:46, buying peaches, when she slipped on some liquid and fell, injuring her wrist and ribs. Neither the cashier nor any other employee could recall any such incident.
On the same day at about noon, Johnson said the same thing happened in the frozen food aisle of a Tacoma Fred Meyer store.
In both cases, she said, she was embarrassed and quickly left. She filed claims with both stores, showing medical care and prescription drug receipts totalling more than $5,500.
A subsequent investigation by Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit indicated that she apparently submitted virtually identical medical receipts to each store, including an 8-page emergency room report that was missing some pages.
Medical records obtained through a search warrant indicated that the treatment was unrelated to a fall at either store. The records also showed that there been no expense to Johnson for the care.
The investigation also revealed that Johnson has filed at least five auto-accident medical claims and at least half a dozen slip-and-fall injury claims.
Brenda J. Johnson, 50, is scheduled to be arraigned today in Pierce County Superior Court. She has been charged with first-degree theft and first-degree attempted theft.
Johnson said she was near check stand No. 2 at a Tacoma Safeway store on Sept. 18, 2009 at 11:46, buying peaches, when she slipped on some liquid and fell, injuring her wrist and ribs. Neither the cashier nor any other employee could recall any such incident.
On the same day at about noon, Johnson said the same thing happened in the frozen food aisle of a Tacoma Fred Meyer store.
In both cases, she said, she was embarrassed and quickly left. She filed claims with both stores, showing medical care and prescription drug receipts totalling more than $5,500.
A subsequent investigation by Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit indicated that she apparently submitted virtually identical medical receipts to each store, including an 8-page emergency room report that was missing some pages.
Medical records obtained through a search warrant indicated that the treatment was unrelated to a fall at either store. The records also showed that there been no expense to Johnson for the care.
The investigation also revealed that Johnson has filed at least five auto-accident medical claims and at least half a dozen slip-and-fall injury claims.
Rabu, 13 Oktober 2010
Lewis County couple convicted of insurance fraud
A Lewis County couple have been sentenced to jail for filing a false insurance claim.
Jennifer Mau, 30, and David Eden, 47, were found guilty by a jury on Friday.
Their case began as a moving claim. They rented a U-Haul truck on March 30, 2007 to move their household goods and personal belongings from a Centralia storage facility to their new home. They claimed that the U-Haul truck leaked rainwater, destroying $16,789 worth of her property.
Mau reported the loss to U-Haul and filed a claim. The couple said they threw out the damaged property at a landfill.
The insurer had the U-Haul truck water tested for leaks. No leaks were found. The insurer, Republic Western Insurance, denied Mau's claim and turned the case over to state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit. The SIU's investigation included checks with local weather stations, which reported little or no precipitation that night.
The court sentenced Mau to 60 days in jail, with the option of electronic home monitoring. Eden was sentenced to 15 days in jail. (Both sentences are stayed pending a possible appeal.)
Jennifer Mau, 30, and David Eden, 47, were found guilty by a jury on Friday.
Their case began as a moving claim. They rented a U-Haul truck on March 30, 2007 to move their household goods and personal belongings from a Centralia storage facility to their new home. They claimed that the U-Haul truck leaked rainwater, destroying $16,789 worth of her property.
Mau reported the loss to U-Haul and filed a claim. The couple said they threw out the damaged property at a landfill.
The insurer had the U-Haul truck water tested for leaks. No leaks were found. The insurer, Republic Western Insurance, denied Mau's claim and turned the case over to state Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit. The SIU's investigation included checks with local weather stations, which reported little or no precipitation that night.
The court sentenced Mau to 60 days in jail, with the option of electronic home monitoring. Eden was sentenced to 15 days in jail. (Both sentences are stayed pending a possible appeal.)
Cease-and-desist order issued against Capital HomeShield
Washington State Insurance Commissoiner Mike Kreidler has issued a cease-and-desist order against a Florida-based home warranty company doing business as Capital Home Shield.
The North Miami Beach company -- which was not registered as a service contract provider or insurer in Washington state -- nonetheless sold a contract to a Washington homeowner. He complained to us after he had difficulty getting them to pay for a repair to his stove. The company subsequently paid the claim.
Under the contract, Capital Home Shield, which is a doing-business-as name of MN Home Warranty Corp., promised to pay to repair or replace major systems and appliances that broke.
Kreidler ordered the company to to stop selling unauthorized contracts in Washington and to turn over a list of all its Washington clients, as well as reporting all premiums they've paid so far.
According to the local Better Business Bureau, the company has an "F" rating for repeatedly failing to respond to complaints.
The North Miami Beach company -- which was not registered as a service contract provider or insurer in Washington state -- nonetheless sold a contract to a Washington homeowner. He complained to us after he had difficulty getting them to pay for a repair to his stove. The company subsequently paid the claim.
Under the contract, Capital Home Shield, which is a doing-business-as name of MN Home Warranty Corp., promised to pay to repair or replace major systems and appliances that broke.
Kreidler ordered the company to to stop selling unauthorized contracts in Washington and to turn over a list of all its Washington clients, as well as reporting all premiums they've paid so far.
According to the local Better Business Bureau, the company has an "F" rating for repeatedly failing to respond to complaints.
Everett man who signed up for insurance AFTER crash pleads guilty
A 40-year-old Everett man who caused a three-car collision last fall has pleaded guilty to attempted insurance fraud, a gross misdemeanor.
On Oct. 8, 2009, Bieniek was driving his 1999 Ford F150 pickup. He'd owned it for about 5 years but didn't have insurance on it.
He claimed that just minutes before the collision, he'd picked up the truck from a friend in a parking lot, opened his laptop computer and bought insurance online from Geico Insurance.
But Geico, after pulling the company's online log, determined that Bieniek got the coverage after the wreck, not before. The company turned the case over to the Washington state insurance commissioner's Special Investigations Unit. Bieniek was charged with insurance fraud ("false claims or proof") in King County Superior Court in July.
On Friday, Bieniek pleaded guilty to attempted insurance fraud. He was sentenced to 6 months' probation, 120 hours of community service and a $500 victim penalty assesssment.
On Oct. 8, 2009, Bieniek was driving his 1999 Ford F150 pickup. He'd owned it for about 5 years but didn't have insurance on it.
He claimed that just minutes before the collision, he'd picked up the truck from a friend in a parking lot, opened his laptop computer and bought insurance online from Geico Insurance.
But Geico, after pulling the company's online log, determined that Bieniek got the coverage after the wreck, not before. The company turned the case over to the Washington state insurance commissioner's Special Investigations Unit. Bieniek was charged with insurance fraud ("false claims or proof") in King County Superior Court in July.
On Friday, Bieniek pleaded guilty to attempted insurance fraud. He was sentenced to 6 months' probation, 120 hours of community service and a $500 victim penalty assesssment.
Selasa, 12 Oktober 2010
Behind the scenes in our Consumer Advocacy program...
Not enough people know about it, but our consumer advocacy staff run a free phone hotline -- staffed by live people, not some endless phone tree -- to help you get answers to insurance questions and problems. It's 1-800-562-6900.
People call when they're unhappy with what their insurer's offering for their wrecked car, for example. They call, increasingly, because they cannot find affordable health coverage and are desperate to find coverage for loved ones. (We also have a special program, called Statewide Health Insurance Benefits Advisors, that trains hundreds of volunteers to help provide information on health insurance and Medicare options. They can be reached through the same number.)
One person called because he was unhappy with the value that an insurer put on his goat, which had met with an untimely end. (True. For what it's worth, we helped get him an extra $25 for his goat.)
Not everyone, however, speaks English-- or at least well enough to get into the details of an insurance claim and policy exclusions. So we have staff who can speak Spanish and Filipino/Tagalog, and others certified to interpret American Sign Language. We have a TTY machine. Some of our publications are available in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian.
And when that's not enough, we tap Language Line Services, a telephone interpreter service that can translate English into more than 150 languages (and vice versa) 24/7.
So if you know someone who's having trouble with an agent or insurer, needs help finding health coverage, etc., have them give us a call: 1-800-562-6900. We speak their language.
People call when they're unhappy with what their insurer's offering for their wrecked car, for example. They call, increasingly, because they cannot find affordable health coverage and are desperate to find coverage for loved ones. (We also have a special program, called Statewide Health Insurance Benefits Advisors, that trains hundreds of volunteers to help provide information on health insurance and Medicare options. They can be reached through the same number.)
One person called because he was unhappy with the value that an insurer put on his goat, which had met with an untimely end. (True. For what it's worth, we helped get him an extra $25 for his goat.)
Not everyone, however, speaks English-- or at least well enough to get into the details of an insurance claim and policy exclusions. So we have staff who can speak Spanish and Filipino/Tagalog, and others certified to interpret American Sign Language. We have a TTY machine. Some of our publications are available in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian.
And when that's not enough, we tap Language Line Services, a telephone interpreter service that can translate English into more than 150 languages (and vice versa) 24/7.
So if you know someone who's having trouble with an agent or insurer, needs help finding health coverage, etc., have them give us a call: 1-800-562-6900. We speak their language.
Seattle woman pleads guilty in insurance fraud case
A Seattle women has pleaded guilty to filing a false claim in an insurance case -- a class C felony -- after allegedly smashing her van into two parked cars and then filing an insurance claim saying the van had been stolen.
Luom Vo, 38, was sentenced in King County Superior Court to 30 days community service and more than $4,000 in restitution and other costs.
According to Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit, Vo was driving on Seattle's Beacon Avenue just before 2 a.m. on Nov. 27, 2009 when she hit two parked vehicles: a Volvo station wagon and a Pontiac Vibe. Her Honda van was disabled in the crash. Neighbors said they saw Vo then climb into a friend's car and leave.
Later that day, Vo filed a claim with her insurer, PEMCO, saying that the van had been stolen. She subsequently insisted to a PEMCO investigator that she was not driving it when the crash happened.
The SIU investigation found that the van had not been stolen, and that she was, in fact, behind the wheel.
Luom Vo, 38, was sentenced in King County Superior Court to 30 days community service and more than $4,000 in restitution and other costs.
According to Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler's Special Investigations Unit, Vo was driving on Seattle's Beacon Avenue just before 2 a.m. on Nov. 27, 2009 when she hit two parked vehicles: a Volvo station wagon and a Pontiac Vibe. Her Honda van was disabled in the crash. Neighbors said they saw Vo then climb into a friend's car and leave.
Later that day, Vo filed a claim with her insurer, PEMCO, saying that the van had been stolen. She subsequently insisted to a PEMCO investigator that she was not driving it when the crash happened.
The SIU investigation found that the van had not been stolen, and that she was, in fact, behind the wheel.
The Supreme Court of Canada on a Duty to Defend - part 1
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada held, by unanimous decision, that an insurer will be obligated to defend a claim where the facts alleged in the pleadings, if proven to be true, would require the insurer to indemnify the insured for the claim regardless of whether the allegations in the pleadings can be proven in evidence. What is required is the mere possibility that a claim falls within the insurance policy. Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada
The focus of the policy interpretation should first and foremost be on the language of the policy itself. Justice Rothstein, for the Supreme Court of Canada, carefully reviewed the terms of the insurance policy. I think this case helpfully emphasizes and reiterates the principle that the terms of the insurance contract itself must be carefully reviewed. Not all insurance policies are the same and it is important for an insurer or coverage counsel to carefully review the terms of the policy. The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that the duty to defend must be determined on the terms of the insurance policy.
Senin, 11 Oktober 2010
>129,000 in WA potentially affected in Farmers class-action settlement
At least 129,973 Washingtonians are potential members of the settlement class in a class-action case that Farmers Group and corporate parent Zurich Financial Services Group have agreed to settle for $455 million.
The companies say payments "may vary considerably", but will average $35 per policyholder, and that some 13 million policyholders may qualify for a distribution under the settlement.
Customers with questions can contact Farmers regarding the settlement at 1-888-538-5785.
Here's our original post on this, with more details about the case and a link to Zurich's press release.
The companies say payments "may vary considerably", but will average $35 per policyholder, and that some 13 million policyholders may qualify for a distribution under the settlement.
Customers with questions can contact Farmers regarding the settlement at 1-888-538-5785.
Here's our original post on this, with more details about the case and a link to Zurich's press release.
Senin, 04 Oktober 2010
Fraudulent Car Accidents
In today's Globe and Mail (October 4, 2010) it is reported that the Insurance Bureau of Canada is warning about a "concerning trend" of insurance fraud.
"There has been a rise in crashes that are orchestrated to claim lucrative no-fault insurance payouts and, to avoid detection, perpetrators are increasingly involving innocent drivers in their pre-planned collisions."
According to the article, "Toronto is the hotbed, with organized crime being linked to several staged accidents. Insurance industry investigators involved in a recent probe, dubbed Project 92, say they’ve identified more than 40 staged car accidents carried out by one particular crime ring alone, 17 of which have already been criminally investigated. Police have laid 291 charges against 39 individuals in the sting, 20 of whom have been convicted."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/insurers-beware-national-watchdog-raises-alarm-for-fraud/article1740676/
"There has been a rise in crashes that are orchestrated to claim lucrative no-fault insurance payouts and, to avoid detection, perpetrators are increasingly involving innocent drivers in their pre-planned collisions."
According to the article, "Toronto is the hotbed, with organized crime being linked to several staged accidents. Insurance industry investigators involved in a recent probe, dubbed Project 92, say they’ve identified more than 40 staged car accidents carried out by one particular crime ring alone, 17 of which have already been criminally investigated. Police have laid 291 charges against 39 individuals in the sting, 20 of whom have been convicted."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/insurers-beware-national-watchdog-raises-alarm-for-fraud/article1740676/
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)