No-Fault Car insurance coming to AB?

[Xtrema]

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-government-tables-auto-insurance-bill-committee-recommends-adopting-no-fault-insurance-1.5165870


No-fault insurance is when both insurance companies pay damages in collisions where multiple drivers are involved, regardless of who caused the crash. Alberta currently operates on an at-fault system in which the insurance company for the driver deemed at-fault pays damages.

Month old news. Not sure if it's been posted before. Wonder what's everyone's take on this.

[lasimmon]

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-government-tables-auto-insurance-bill-committee-recommends-adopting-no-fault-insurance-1.5165870



Month old news. Not sure if it's been posted before. Wonder what's everyone's take on this.

i imagine there won't be any benefit to the average person, but it is what it is.

[ExtraSlow]

I don't know if I care. Should I care?

[AndyL]

We already had the megathread in the spring didn't we?

Bill says it's bad.

I'm going with bill.

[ExtraSlow]

My attention span is too short to know.

[shakalaka]

This is a big thing for PI lawyers (myself included). Essentially it will take out the role of personal injury lawyers quite dramatically as all damages/compensations are going to be pre-determined. The bigger PI firms that have solely relied on this area of law for making money (and made quite a lot of $) are definitely shitting it but not much can be done as most other provinces have already implemented this.

[Buster]

This is a big thing for PI lawyers (myself included). Essentially it will take out the role of personal injury lawyers quite dramatically as all damages/compensations are going to be pre-determined. The bigger PI firms that have solely relied on this area of law for making money (and made quite a lot of $) are definitely shitting it but not much can be done as most other provinces have already implemented this.

I'm pretty sure those are the guys that fucked it all for everyone, no?

[shakalaka]

I'm pretty sure those are the guys that fucked it all for everyone, no?

I mean yes and no. Plaintiff lawyers did sue the shit out of insurance companies over the years and made a killing. I have family members doing exclusively this area for 30 years and making 7 figures. First the cap was brought in 2004 that quite dramatically impacted plaintiff lawyers initially but then loop holes were discovered and everything was fine and back to business as usual. Now with this, there's likely nothing that will be able to be done. Basically in the new system an individual will receive compensation whether they caused the accident or were the innocent victim as the result of someone else’s negligence. A no-fault system effectively will take away an individual’s right to sue. Also, the system itself will decide what a party owes and what a party receives. (summarizing from an online link).

But when lawyers would get clients with certain injuries it is their obligation to pursue the case to the fullest extent and get the best possible compensation - so whether you call that lawyers doing their job well or fucking it up for everyone is a matter of perspective. I think this shit was gonna happen no matter what as insurance company lobbies are massive with deep pockets as you can imagine, so they basically get whatever the hell the want.

The no-fault system is not good for people in general either as you will no longer have a lawyer looking out for your best interests (and of course their own in terms of compensation) and a for-profit insurance company isn't going to be compensating anyone as per what their injuries actually deserve as they will obviously try to save as much $ as possible (which they do now as well but at least the lawyers are there to protect people). Insurance companies will also determine the course of treatment etc. It's a pretty fucked up system if you ask me and I am not just saying that from the perspective of my PI practice (which it also is unfortunately).

[Buster]

So the lawyers didn't fuck it up.. But they did figure out a way to fuck it all up.

[ExtraSlow]

I mean, if your goal is for lawyers to make less money, I think the no-fault helps with that.

I'm not so sure about other outcomes.

[The_Rural_Juror]

Lane splitting here I come!

[nzwasp]

So is no fault car insurance similar to the no fault you have with your first 1 or 2 accidents and then after that you are completely fucked in terms of rates. Seems to me it just puts a limit on how much people get for injury coverage. They also should stop those fuckers that have an accident and then 12 months later when its determined they didn't cause the accident then they sue the other party because of their injury. This happened to me. Had a collision with a lady at 5kph she got out was completely fine even told me she was etc. We both blamed each other, 12 months later insurance determined it was my fault, day after the lady put an injury claim in.

[killramos]

I’d personally rather my insurance premiums not go towards a lottery jackpot for someone who doesn’t deserve shit.

So sounds good to me.

[Buster]

I’d personally rather my insurance premiums not go towards a lottery jackpot for someone who doesn’t deserve shit.

So sounds good to me.

The lawyers are just welcome collateral damage. (Sorry Shak!)

[killramos]

The lawyers are just welcome collateral damage. (Sorry Shak!)

I’m sure they will find a way

[shakalaka]

Well see this is the problem that lot of people are not seeing. They are unreasonably blinded by thinking lawyers will make less money so it's good. But as an individual it's impacting your own rights if you were to get into a collision that wasn't your fault and ended up causing you significant injuries. Now on one side you had a lawyer who's goal was to legally get you as much compensation as they possibly can (the more they make, the more you make and vice versa) vs now the insurance company itself will not only determine how much compensation you deserve (if any) but also dictate the mode of treatment for the injuries must take. They are taking your free choice out to go to the doctor of your choice, choose treatment of your choice as you currently have. And this is just the start of it.

Anyway, it doesn't bother me either way. Sure if this didn't come into play, I feel that I would have done really well in PI law based on how my PI practice sort of unexpectedly erupted this year and if I had a chance of keep on going I imagine it would have only gotten better. But by the same token, to date in my practice I have made negligible amount of money from PI files as I never used to do too much. So while I can't regret not being able to make a living that I wasn't actually making, I do partly regret having that opportunity being taken away from me All that being said and more than that it's the impact on day to day lives of citizens and the amount of control insurance companies will be able to exert on people's lives is what bothers me the most. People keep saying it's good that lawyers are screwed but ultimately they are the ones getting screwed and only ones coming out even richer and stronger out of this are the insurance companies. So basically they are taking out the lawyers that acted as defenders of people's rights and the people are actually loving it and supporting it cause of their belief that they dislike the lawyers. This is the game insurance companies have played and very well at that. Reminds me of the saying, “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist.”.

[dirtsniffer]

I already pay too much for insurance. If preventing the tmj lottery helps me avoid increases for a few years Im all for it. But maybe thats a payout cap. Cant say im a fan of my rates going up if someone crashes into me

[shakalaka]

I already pay too much for insurance. If preventing the tmj lottery helps me avoid increases for a few years Im all for it. But maybe thats a payout cap. Cant say im a fan of my rates going up if someone crashes into me

I don't think that will happen. Since every accident will be each parties fault, each insurance companies will be paying out much more frequently than what happens now I feel. Sure no compensation for pain and suffering or loss of employment or loss of life etc. so they save that money, but since they will now be paying out on each collision (whether their insured's fault or not), I imagine the costs will continue to go up anyway.

[The_Rural_Juror]

Tesla insurance is the way. Everyone pays based on their own likelihood of a claim.

[Buster]

I don't think that will happen. Since every accident will be each parties fault, each insurance companies will be paying out much more frequently than what happens now I feel. Sure no compensation for pain and suffering or loss of employment or loss of life etc. so they save that money, but since they will now be paying out on each collision (whether their insured's fault or not), I imagine the costs will continue to go up anyway.

People are now being asked to assume the risk of injury by getting into a car.

I blame the loopholes more than the lawyers. This is just a different way to close the loopholes.

[Masked Bandit]

There are several angles to the current system vs. the no fault system but in the end I don't know that the consumer will be any better off with no fault. The theory is that for the most part you cut the personal injury lawyers out of the equation therefore reducing overall claims costs which in turn should lead to lower premiums for everyone. The reality is that Ontario has had no fault for a long time and they pay way more for insurance on average than we do here in Alberta, so where did things go wrong? As I understand it (and this is by no means guaranteed) Alberta is looking at somewhat of a hybrid system that will give you the choice to pay extra and still retain the right to sue the other guy for injuries in some circumstances. Frankly the whole thing seems like a shell game to just shift costs from one pocket to the next but in the end I don't think it's going to be any cheaper for the average Albertan.

[Thaco]

i just see this as careless/bad drivers get a free ride, instead of being 100% at fault and fucking them, they're only 50% at fault and it fucks both people....

I have a clean driving record mostly out of fear of my rates being jacked up... i am sure this free ride will change a lot of peoples attitudes. Might even encourage people to crash on purpose.... "my car's a shitbox, if i crash it, i get paid out, lets plow in to this innocent person and fuck them over too"

[ExtraSlow]

The people who get sued already don't bear the costs of those settlements. That's borne by the insurance company, and therefore by all thier customers.

I am sure that insurance companies will get thier profits either way. And the consumer is the least important part of it all.

[rage2]

TL;DR: we've been funding the shakalaka car swap program all along for our own entertainment.

[JRSC00LUDE]

No fault in Saskatchewan sucks.

[lilmira]

Don't worry guys. It's a write off, they just write it off.

[max_boost]

TL;DR: we've been funding the shakalaka car swap program all along for our own entertainment.

Lol

[Masked Bandit]

i just see this as careless/bad drivers get a free ride, instead of being 100% at fault and fucking them, they're only 50% at fault and it fucks both people....

I have a clean driving record mostly out of fear of my rates being jacked up... i am sure this free ride will change a lot of peoples attitudes. Might even encourage people to crash on purpose.... "my car's a shitbox, if i crash it, i get paid out, lets plow in to this innocent person and fuck them over too"


That's not quite how it works. The insurance companies will still determine fault and the at-fault party will still pay higher rates it's just that each side will now have their own insurance companies repair their vehicles. I'm not 100% sure how the PLPD angle of that is going to work but essentially in the end a not at fault event isn't supposed to raise your premiums.



TL;DR: we've been funding the shakalaka car swap program all along for our own entertainment.

Rep for you. We all should have realized this much sooner.

[Masked Bandit]

Think of it like this:

You're 10 years old and you're scrapping with your sibling when your Mom walks in the room and says "what the hell is going on here", both you and your sibling insist that the other side started it and she says "I don't care who started it, both of you go to your rooms and your Father will deal with you when he gets home". Then, Dad comes home, listens to both stories, figures out who's lying and beats wholesale ass on the guilty party while the other one gets cookies from Mom.

[Buster]

Think of it like this:

You're 10 years old and you're scrapping with your sibling when your Mom walks in the room and says "what the hell is going on here", both you and your sibling insist that the other side started it and she says "I don't care who started it, both of you go to your rooms and your Father will deal with you when he gets home". Then, Dad comes home, listens to both stories, figures out who's lying and beats wholesale ass on the guilty party while the other one gets cookies from Mom.

tough upbringing?

[rage2]

tough upbringing?
He might be Chinese.

Edit - nope. If he was Chinese both mom and dad would’ve kicked his ass.

[Xtrema]

He might be Chinese.

Edit - nope. If he was Chinese both mom and dad would’ve kicked his ass.

Lack of feather duster in that story is the give away.

[shakalaka]

TL;DR: we've been funding the shakalaka car swap program all along for our own entertainment.

Haha I wish. Like I said, my PI practice is just about taking off now and prior to this was other areas and I never really got to do too much with PI. If I had about 10-15 years in the old pre-cap PI regime, man I'd be retiring right now. Haha.

[bigboom]

If he was chinese, both would have gotten beat first for causing the disturbance and then once the parents figured out who actually started it they then get an extra beating.

[max_boost]

If Chinese. Why the fk you crash in the first place lol why you no avoid son??

Also, are payouts generally much lower for injuries? Easier to settle? More difficult to settle?

[Masked Bandit]

tough upbringing?


Meh, we deserved everything we got.


He might be Chinese.

Edit - nope. If he was Chinese both mom and dad would’ve kicked his ass.


Lack of feather duster in that story is the give away.


If he was chinese, both would have gotten beat first for causing the disturbance and then once the parents figured out who actually started it they then get an extra beating.


No Chinese, but by the time I was 10 I was bigger than my mother and frankly my brother & I were assholes so she would just give us the "you can deal with your father when he gets home", that's when we knew we were REALLY in shit! No feather duster for us, it was wooden spoon until Mom broke a couple of them and got sick of buying them

[AndyL]

No feather duster for us, it was wooden spoon until Mom broke a couple of them and got sick of buying them

Gah, then ikea opened and the moms found those white plastic ones.

Took a solid year before I learned the right time clench snapped them every time :rofl:

[firebane]

Gah, then ikea opened and the moms found those white plastic ones.

Took a solid year before I learned the right time clench snapped them every time :rofl:

we had the wooden ones till my mom realized she broke too many then went to plastic.. yeah we smartened up a lot faster.

[killramos]

Let’s put it this way, if both products were offered which would you prefer?

Cheaper, no fault insurance with no injury lottery.

Or more expensive insurance where maybe you can sue your way into Aspen?

I know which one I would pick.

[Xtrema]

Let’s put it this way, if both products were offered which would you prefer?

Cheaper, no fault insurance with no injury lottery.

Or more expensive insurance where maybe you can sue your way into Aspen?

I know which one I would pick.

You get no lottery and insurance premium keep going up. Have to sell Aspen home.

[killramos]

That’s a fact of both products

[Masked Bandit]

Let’s put it this way, if both products were offered which would you prefer?

Cheaper, no fault insurance with no injury lottery.

Or more expensive insurance where maybe you can sue your way into Aspen?

I know which one I would pick.

You're assuming that no-fault will be cheaper in the long run. Ontario residents and statistics will tell you it's not.

[killramos]

Both products offer the same coverage, except one has injury payouts capped. Math doesn’t seem hard to me.

[ExtraSlow]

You're assuming that no-fault will be cheaper in the long run. Ontario residents and statistics will tell you it's not.

I mean, there's no feature of at-fault coverage that mean it could be cheaper, and with no-fault, it might be cheaper, but either not much, or not at all.

[shakalaka]

People just don't seem to get it. Nothing is going to be cheaper. Rates will continue to go up. The only difference will be that the insurance companies will keep getting even richer and your right as an individual to sue for the injuries you have suffered for the mistakes of someone else will be gone. How is that a good thing?

Injury payout caps already exist at present. But at least everyone has the freedom of choosing the kind of treatment they want, the doctor of their choice, physio of their choice etc. Under new regulations none of that will exist.

[ExtraSlow]

Agree that no-fault reduces rights for individuals with legitimate injuries.

[shakalaka]

Agree that no-fault reduces rights for individuals with legitimate injuries.


Trust me the days of people with no injuries getting massive payouts aren't really that common anymore. After the cap in 2004, that has been DRASTICALLY impacted. I am sure it happens but nowhere near enough to justify abrogating human rights in this manner. Pre cap, sure people would BS their way into larger settlements. Post cap you do need to show significant amount of treatments and injuries to get anything decent settlement wise.

[ExtraSlow]

I believe that. I don't have a strong preference for either system of insurance. Like most things, the government does a poor job of regulating this.

[killramos]

People just don't seem to get it. Nothing is going to be cheaper. Rates will continue to go up. The only difference will be that the insurance companies will keep getting even richer and your right as an individual to sue for the injuries you have suffered for the mistakes of someone else will be gone. How is that a good thing?

Injury payout caps already exist at present. But at least everyone has the freedom of choosing the kind of treatment they want, the doctor of their choice, physio of their choice etc. Under new regulations none of that will exist.

So we just have to choose between insurance companies getting richer and lawyers getting richer?

Sure injury payout caps exist, and those were effective until the lawyers found their way around them.

End of the day I don’t really care who gets rich from any of this, I just want my personal option to choose an insurance system that nets me the lowest rates. I personally combat this with very high deductibles, and self insure when I can. But not much I can do about legislated liability coverage.

No fault insurance seems like a system that would work out better for me therefore I want that option. I’d say offer both systems, but I’m pretty sure nearly no one outside of scam artists would choose the current system over no fault, so it seems if we have to pick one system no fault would be my preference.

Beautiful thing about insurance companies making bank, is I can either buy shares in them or a competitor can compete with them to drive down those profits. That’s not really how it works with courts and lawyers bleeding margins from the whole process.

[shakalaka]

It's not an Apples to Apples comparison when you are trying to compare insurance companies making bank vs lawyers making bank. lol I wish it was.

But anyway, you are entitled to your opinion and for some reason you seem to feel that a certain system that has empirically shown to actually not work 'as promoted/advertised' and instead only limits an individual's right of choice is better, then so be it.

[killramos]

I think my entire point is that it wasn’t apples to apples. In that the lawyers were a parasitic force in the process.

[Xtrema]

I think my entire point is that it wasn’t apples to apples. In that the lawyers were a parasitic force in the process.

That and we are all driving way more disposable/expensive cars and that trend ain't slowing down.

[shakalaka]

.

[Buster]

Why can't we just put caps on that actually, you know, work?

[shakalaka]

I hope insurance is cheaper under the new system. But I would be naive as fuck if I think that will actually happen. Insurance companies will have a monopoly and keep on killing it and regular joe blows like us will get fucked over with not only ever-increasing premiums but the ones that are genuinely suffering from debilitating injuries due to someone else's fuck up not getting appropriate treatment/care unless they further bend over by shelling out money out of pocket.

[killramos]

.

Fwiw I’m not trying to be an asshole. But it is a bit funny to criticize insurance companies getting rich while pretending lawyers getting rich sueing people over mundane injuries is a noble pursuit.

Nothing personal. And I’m 100% ok with people making money, even lots of money. However I am supportive of steps that I think favour myself and my insurance needs that are contrary to that. Lawyers getting rich over insurance settlements does me literally no good.

[shakalaka]

I am not speaking about people that fake injuries or make up stuff. I am speaking about the ones that are genuinely injured. Ever since the cap came in, the so called scammers are very few and far between. I am in the business - I know. Insurance companies don't hand out payouts anymore like they used to and you have to have genuine injuries and a stringent followed treatment protocol to actually get compensated (out of the cap) with anything meaningful these days. I can give you actual examples. I get where you are coming from, but I feel you are jaded with the thought process of scammers not being able to scam so much so that you are not seeing the other, much more worse side of things that will happen.

For the most part - people with mundane injuries only get mundane settlements.

FWIW the cap changes every year slightly but it's around the $4K-$5K mark. Majority of the claims that aren't genuine get end up getting caught into that. So the insurance companies hiking our rates isn't based on them shelling out SO much more money than what they should have to. New systems is simply so they can have even more control over people's lives, better handle on their own finances and essentially continue making a killing (they do even now) without any impunity or checks or balances.

[tirebob]

You're assuming that no-fault will be cheaper in the long run. Ontario residents and statistics will tell you it's not.Do you think that could be attributed to the fact that there are so many more people out there having more accidents causing the rates to be higher? Kind of similar to when I lived in small town BC my insurance rates were cheaper than when I lived in Vancouver? I mean if you cost average out the entire province, it looks higher, but if you look into rural rates versus city rates, is it justifiably higher in and around the city, and since so many people live on the border, it would be a given the rates are higher no?

I may be dead wrong here but I would not be surprised to see it as such.

[killramos]

I think a few people falling through the cracks is a necessary evil in correcting an unsustainable system.

[tirebob]

I am not speaking about people that fake injuries or make up stuff. I am speaking about the ones that are genuinely injured. Ever since the cap came in, the so called scammers are very few and far between. I am in the business - I know. Insurance companies don't hand out payouts anymore like they used to and you have to have genuine injuries and a stringent followed treatment protocol to actually get compensated (out of the cap) with anything meaningful these days. I can give you actual examples. I get where you are coming from, but I feel you are jaded with the thought process of scammers not being able to scam so much so that you are not seeing the other, much more worse side of things that will happen.

FWIW the cap changes every year slightly but it's around the $4K-$5K mark. Majority of the claims that aren't genuine get end up getting caught into that. So the insurance companies hiking our rates isn't based on them shelling out SO much money that they have to. It's simply so they can have even more control over people's lives, better handle on their own finances and essentially continue making a killing (they do even now) without any impunity or checks or balances.Correct me if I am wrong Shak, but it isn't like you couldn't go after the individual after the fact, no? It just wouldn't be the insurance companies lawyers fighting between themselves?

[shakalaka]

I think a few people falling through the cracks is a necessary evil in correcting an unsustainable system.

The whole issue is that this system will not be correcting jack shit. It's not about whether lawyers will make less money or people's rights are being abrogated. The system that insurance companies purport will fix all the issues actually has not done anything to fix any issue except making their own pockets deeper.


Correct me if I am wrong Shak, but it isn't like you couldn't go after the individual after the fact, no? It just wouldn't be the insurance companies lawyers fighting between themselves?

Under the civil law of torts you can always sue someone for their negligence but of course then getting a judgment personally against someone and collecting on it is a completely different ball game. Also there will be issues about liability - if insurance companies have deemed neither party at fault, proving liability will become increasingly difficult. If a Lambo hits you then great, probably a good party to sue potentially but if you get paralyzed by a beater - chances are you are shit out of luck.

[Buster]

The whole issue is that this system will not be correcting jack shit. It's not about whether lawyers will make less money or people's rights are being abrogated. The system that insurance companies purport will fix all the issues actually has not done anything to fix any issue except making their own pockets deeper.



Under the civil law of torts you can always sue someone for their negligence but of course then getting a judgment personally against someone and collecting on it is a completely different ball game. Also there will be issues about liability - if insurance companies have deemed neither party at fault, proving liability will become increasingly difficult. If a Lambo hits you then great, probably a good party to sue potentially but if you get paralyzed by a beater - chances are you are shit out of luck.

Then we need to:

- accept risk for getting on the road with bad drivers in beaters

or

- make people personally liable (criminally?) for causing injury that is their fault. That is- create a much bigger incentive for people to not ram each other on the road.

Are the rates going up on collision or on liability as a result of the loopholes in PI lawsuits?

[tirebob]

Under the civil law of torts you can always sue someone for their negligence but of course then getting a judgment personally against someone and collecting on it is a completely different ball game. Also there will be issues about liability - if insurance companies have deemed neither party at fault, proving liability will become increasingly difficult. If a Lambo hits you then great, probably a good party to sue potentially but if you get paralyzed by a beater - chances are you are shit out of luck.
That would kind of be like suing someone who has minimal insurance or even an uninsured motorist who causes an accident no?

[ExtraSlow]

I think the chance of getting money out of someone who causes an accident without an insurance company involved is nearly zero. Removing insurance from the situation isn't going to increase "personal responsibility".

[lasimmon]

Isn't it far more concerning the rules being rolled out about monitoring (phone or in car device) of driving habits by insurance companies?

[Buster]

Isn't it far more concerning the rules being rolled out about monitoring (phone or in car device) of driving habits by insurance companies?

Sounds like something that Tesla owners would welcome.

[Masked Bandit]

I'm not going to multi-quote a bunch of posts but after reading through the thread I've got a few additional comments:

- To Shak's argument about people not being able to sue for injuries, I don't think that's going away 100%. Take this with a grain of salt because A) I don't work in Ontario insurance and B) any new plan here in Alberta may be different than Ontario but as I understand it severe injuries (paralyzed for example) that show real costs that exceed the predetermined compensation levels are still eligible to be recovered from the liable party. You can still sue someone (and by someone I mean their insurance company) for big injuries.

- Fault of a motor vehicle collision will indeed still be determined but that info will only be used for determining future rates for the at-fault party.

- Monitoring of your driving behaviour is purely optional, there's nothing out there that suggests it will be required at any point. The insurance companies had to push the government quite hard to even be allowed to offer it and the programs come with all kinds of restrictions on the insurance companies. I can't see a day anytime soon where this will be required. It's simply an option you can access to help lower your premiums.

[lasimmon]

I'm not going to multi-quote a bunch of posts but after reading through the thread I've got a few additional comments:

- To Shak's argument about people not being able to sue for injuries, I don't think that's going away 100%. Take this with a grain of salt because A) I don't work in Ontario insurance and B) any new plan here in Alberta may be different than Ontario but as I understand it severe injuries (paralyzed for example) that show real costs that exceed the predetermined compensation levels are still eligible to be recovered from the liable party. You can still sue someone (and by someone I mean their insurance company) for big injuries.

- Fault of a motor vehicle collision will indeed still be determined but that info will only be used for determining future rates for the at-fault party.

- Monitoring of your driving behaviour is purely optional, there's nothing out there that suggests it will be required at any point. The insurance companies had to push the government quite hard to even be allowed to offer it and the programs come with all kinds of restrictions on the insurance companies. I can't see a day anytime soon where this will be required. It's simply an option you can access to help lower your premiums.

Personally I think when these programs get rolled out there will be a large increase in insurance rates if you don't join. They may be optional, but I think there will be costs associated with not joining.

[Tik-Tok]

Personally I think when these programs get rolled out there will be a large increase in insurance rates if you don't join. They may be optional, but I think there will be costs associated with not joining.

No, that would be illegal. What will happen is larger discounts, and less increases for people who join.

[shakalaka]

In theory you are quite right but in practice things are not going to be the same. That's what all the senior PI guys have been saying based on their experience with other jurisdictions etc. But ya I guess, time will tell. Meant that for MB re: suing for big injuries.

[Masked Bandit]

In theory you are quite right but in practice things are not going to be the same. That's what all the senior PI guys have been saying based on their experience with other jurisdictions etc. But ya I guess, time will tell. Meant that for MB re: suing for big injuries.

It's pretty clear that the goal of the industry is to eliminate / greatly reduce the PI portion of the payouts that go to lawyers, that's just a fact. Whether or not that's good for society as a whole is a discussion for at least two pitchers of beer and a couple plates of wings.

[Xtrema]

Isn't it far more concerning the rules being rolled out about monitoring (phone or in car device) of driving habits by insurance companies?

Buddy did that (I believe for 90 days) and got himself 15% discount. Lots of people in Ontario willingly participate as well.

Surprisingly, California is the only jurisdiction that ban this practice as they can't hold insurance industry on the discount.

[Tik-Tok]

Unfortunately the apps that track you are garbage. Co-worker n did it for three months and was constantly on the phone with them arguing about events that never happened.

[shakalaka]

It's pretty clear that the goal of the industry is to eliminate / greatly reduce the PI portion of the payouts that go to lawyers, that's just a fact. Whether or not that's good for society as a whole is a discussion for at least two pitchers of beer and a couple plates of wings.

A lot more booze if you are a lawyer. Haha.

I am just happy I am not one of those that put all their eggs in one basket.

[killramos]

I like wings and beer

[Masked Bandit]

Unfortunately the apps that track you are garbage. Co-worker n did it for three months and was constantly on the phone with them arguing about events that never happened.

One of our providers has just released a new version of their app and they say it fixed a lot of bugs / defects in the old system. Time will tell I guess, I'll believe it when I see it.

[lasimmon]

No, that would be illegal. What will happen is larger discounts, and less increases for people who join.

Which is exactly the same thing.

[16hypen3sp]

When I was in court the other day, most people there were speaking to charges of 'driving without insurance'. The Judge asked them why they had no insurance and they replied with 'cannot afford it.'

The problem almost all Albertans care about is the cost of the annual premium. Pretty much everyones insurance has gone up since the cap was lifted. Is the solution the 'no fault' insurance method? Maybe.... Maybe not. It really depends on if and by how much it drops peoples premiums. Is it a good method if you get in a traffic collision and you're not at fault? Probably not. But what we have right now doesn't satisfy the concerns over premium amounts.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know I'd like my premium to drop. I saw a small increase again recently when I renewed. That being said, I don't want to be fucked over if I'm not at fault either tho.

[Buster]

If you take away the lawyers compensation you take away a lot of the fuel for the litigation, no?

[94boosted]

Are the PI lawsuits for TMJ/concussion injuries the biggest reason behind the relentless premium increases year over year? Or is it more so that a headlight for an econobox can easily cost $1500 or that we get peppered by hail more and more often?

I'm with killramos on this one, I don't care which system we go with, I just care about my premiums :rofl:

[Masked Bandit]

Are the PI lawsuits for TMJ/concussion injuries the biggest reason behind the relentless premium increases year over year? Or is it more so that a headlight for an econobox can easily cost $1500 or that we get peppered by hail more and more often?

I'm with killramos on this one, I don't care which system we go with, I just care about my premiums :rofl:

It's both.

[TParsons777]

I saw this news here https://www.surex.com/news/is-alberta-next-for-no-fault-car-insurance regarding Alberta being next for a no-fault car insurance policy. There's a lot of useful information that one might like to know if they're living in Alberta or just concerned about this development like the benefits of a no-fault car insurance policy as well as FAQs about it coming from an insurance company itself. According to the article, the benefits are simpler claims process, better coverage, and fewer disputes. I guess we'll see about that. It's gonna be quite the stir for lawyers, insurance providers, and dumb drivers.

[killramos]

Bots are getting out of hand the last few weeks.

[SKR]

I saw this news here https://www.surex.com/news/is-alberta-next-for-no-fault-car-insurance regarding Alberta being next for a no-fault car insurance policy. There's a lot of useful information that one might like to know if they're living in Alberta or just concerned about this development like the benefits of a no-fault car insurance policy as well as FAQs about it coming from an insurance company itself. According to the article, the benefits are simpler claims process, better coverage, and fewer disputes. I guess we'll see about that. It's gonna be quite the stir for lawyers, insurance providers, and dumb drivers.

I read the article and all I got out of it was that Surex wants to maximize profits for insurance companies and to fuck over customers at every turn. Was that the right conclusion to come to? It seemed like it was saying a quote from Surex is sure to be as high as possible because Surex hates its customers, and loves getting kickbacks from insurance companies for providing low quality service and rejecting all insurance claims. I would think twice before getting a quote from Surex.