This week I was speaking to my insurance agent who preparing my renewals. I was asking her about how the optional benefits have been impacted by the regulatory changes that became effective on June 1st. During the conversation it came out that she only had two clients with optional benefits - me, and my daughter and son-in-law. That's it!
Insurance consumers in this province aren't that risk averse. They are foolish and misinformed. As the government continues to whittle away at mandatory accident benefits, consumers maintain the belief that the basic level of coverage is adequate. Who's fault is that? Who is responsible for ensuring consumers are properly informed? The insurance companies, brokers and agents.
When I walk into Best Buy, just about any purchase comes with an aggressive pitch for extended warranty. The sales reps will try to convince how little it costs to purchase that extra protection. They sell a lot of them. People have no problems dropping $100 on an extended warranty for a dishwasher but can't get their head around spending that on one million dollars of additional health care protection. I paid just $98 for that over the past year. Just two tanks of gas.
People aren't happy about the price of auto insurance so they try to keep coverage down to save money. It's the responsibility of the insurance industry to make sure that they at least understand what they are getting for the money.
Saturday, 10 December 2016
Monday, 14 November 2016
Catch Me At Bookapalooza on November 19th
On Saturday I will be signing copies of THE ROAD AHEAD at Bookapalooza in Whitby. It’s a great event with books and crafts for sale, panel discussions, giveaways and a silent auction. There will also be a draw for free signed copy of my novel, which will make a nice gift with the holidays coming up.
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
Ontario Auto Insurance Rates Are Heading Back Up
FSCO's latest quarterly rate approval numbers have been released and the news is not good for consumers. Half the savings as a result of statutory accident benefit cuts that became effective on June 1 are already gone.
FSCO approved 25 private passenger automobile insurance rate filings during the third quarter of 2016. These 25 insurers represent 63.56% of the market based on premium volume. Approved rates increased on average by 1.5% when applied across the total market. This wipes out almost half of the modest 3.07% reduction in approved rate filings in the first quarter of 2016. Depending on rate filings in the last quarter, we could see a net increase in rates for the 2016 calendar year.
The government has abandoned the the 15% rate reduction promise made in August 2016. However, if you aggregate all the rate changes since the 2013 announcement, the total rate reduction is 8.34% when applied across the total market.
Product reforms have proven to be an ineffective tool for controlling auto insurance premiums in Ontario. As long as transactional costs within the system remain high, Ontario drivers will continue to pay high rates. A new delivery system is needed to bring Ontario's costs in line with other jurisdictions. For a discussion on how to address the systemic problems in Ontario, see my article entitled Ontario's 25-Year No-Fault Journey.
FSCO approved 25 private passenger automobile insurance rate filings during the third quarter of 2016. These 25 insurers represent 63.56% of the market based on premium volume. Approved rates increased on average by 1.5% when applied across the total market. This wipes out almost half of the modest 3.07% reduction in approved rate filings in the first quarter of 2016. Depending on rate filings in the last quarter, we could see a net increase in rates for the 2016 calendar year.
The government has abandoned the the 15% rate reduction promise made in August 2016. However, if you aggregate all the rate changes since the 2013 announcement, the total rate reduction is 8.34% when applied across the total market.
Product reforms have proven to be an ineffective tool for controlling auto insurance premiums in Ontario. As long as transactional costs within the system remain high, Ontario drivers will continue to pay high rates. A new delivery system is needed to bring Ontario's costs in line with other jurisdictions. For a discussion on how to address the systemic problems in Ontario, see my article entitled Ontario's 25-Year No-Fault Journey.
Early LAT Decisions Suggest Reforms May Be Working
Effective April 1, 2016, the Licence Appeal Tribunal began accepting applications to the new Automobile Accident Benefits Service (AABS) system with an aim to quickly resolve disagreements between individuals and insurance companies about statutory accident benefits. The guiding principles created for new Tribunal were originally developed by Justice Douglas Cunningham and myself in a report released in 2014.
Over the past few month, there have been a handful of decisions from the Tribunal. I decided to review nine decisions to determine whether there were some early trends.
There seven written hearings and two oral hearings. The two oral hearings were conducted by teleconference. This is consistent with the direction provided in the Cunningham report that the majority of hearings should be conducted through written submissions.
Many FSCO decisions dealt with procedural issues rather than benefit entitlement. Often, hearings were held to listen to preliminary issues. Although the sample size is small, it appears only three decision did not deal directly with benefit entitlement. One dealt with a claimant failing to attend insurer examinations, Another dealt with whether a claimant had the ability to elect to receive either the non-earner benefit or income replacement. The last one involved a claimant trying to claim the cost of preparing an application on an issue that was resolved prior to the case conference. These decisions may suggests that the LAT process may also be bogged down with procedural issues. This is not what Cunningham had envisioned.
The average time between the hearing date and the release of a decision was 51.5 days. This is a significant improvement compared to FSCO timelines but we need to remember it's still early. Let's see how this trends in the future. The decisions themselves have been very short. Somewhere between five to ten pages.
I did not review the quality of the decisions made by Tribunal adjudicators. I leave that for the users to determine. However, so far, the first few decisions have lived up to the reforms objective of a more expeditious process.
Over the past few month, there have been a handful of decisions from the Tribunal. I decided to review nine decisions to determine whether there were some early trends.
There seven written hearings and two oral hearings. The two oral hearings were conducted by teleconference. This is consistent with the direction provided in the Cunningham report that the majority of hearings should be conducted through written submissions.
Many FSCO decisions dealt with procedural issues rather than benefit entitlement. Often, hearings were held to listen to preliminary issues. Although the sample size is small, it appears only three decision did not deal directly with benefit entitlement. One dealt with a claimant failing to attend insurer examinations, Another dealt with whether a claimant had the ability to elect to receive either the non-earner benefit or income replacement. The last one involved a claimant trying to claim the cost of preparing an application on an issue that was resolved prior to the case conference. These decisions may suggests that the LAT process may also be bogged down with procedural issues. This is not what Cunningham had envisioned.
The average time between the hearing date and the release of a decision was 51.5 days. This is a significant improvement compared to FSCO timelines but we need to remember it's still early. Let's see how this trends in the future. The decisions themselves have been very short. Somewhere between five to ten pages.
I did not review the quality of the decisions made by Tribunal adjudicators. I leave that for the users to determine. However, so far, the first few decisions have lived up to the reforms objective of a more expeditious process.
Monday, 17 October 2016
Insurance News - Monday, October 17, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, October 17, 2016:
- Passengers in Uber's Pittsburgh self-driving cars are asked to waive the right to sue for injury or death.
- Uber is rushing to get self-driving cars on the road. Their business model is at risk if don't keep up.
- Will you need auto insurance to drive a self-driving car? Will you even need a drivers license?
- California has loosened the rules and will allow test of autonomous cars with no driver behind the wheel.
- Why Uber has to be first to market with self-driving cars.
- As Baby Boomers age, health issues can make it unsafe or physically impossible to drive, but that won't matter if we all have robotic chauffeurs.
Tuesday, 4 October 2016
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
Insurance News - Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Tuesday, September 27, 2016:
- Motorist in Tesla self-driving vehicle is killed when it smashes into a tree at 100 mph in Holland - but the company insist he had not switched on auto-pilot function.
- Insurance premiums could drop 40 percent by 2050 due to automated vehicles.
- Self-driving cars operated by ride-sharing service Uber hit the public roads in Pittsburgh, as the company launches a pilot program that will pick up actual passengers.
- New Brunswick auto insurance claims have grown $70 million over 3 years and may lead to some large rate hikes.
- Lyft's president says 'majority' of rides will be in self-driving cars by 2021 and car ownership will end by 2025. Overly optimistic?
Thursday, 22 September 2016
THE ROAD AHEAD Is Available
My book, THE ROAD AHEAD, is now available to purchase. Paperback and Kindle versions are available at Amazon.ca and Amazon.com.
A Kobo version is also available at Chapters.ca and Kobobooks.com.
Paperback copies are also available at Ben McNally Books at 366 Bay Street, Toronto.
“Politics has never been this much fun!”
Rick Tompkins, a suburban Toronto insurance broker, never considered a career in politics until a good friend, who happens to be the leader of the Conservative party, asks him to run for office. He accepts the offer, with the understanding that he would probably not win, but can use the opportunity to gain some visibility for himself and his business. Jerry Switzer, a veteran party worker, is sent in to guide Rick through a campaign in a riding that hasn’t elected a Conservative in years. Rick fumbles his way through the election campaign and manages a surprise win but at the expense of saddling his party with an impossible commitment. What makes matters worse, Rick is anything but politically correct. He offends everyone in his path and stumbles from one political scandal to another. Still, Rick has one saving asset: a political party machine that is able to spin scandals to its advantage.
Thursday, 15 September 2016
Insurance News - Thursday, September 15, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, September 15, 2016:
- Uber and Lyft have each been in the news recently for their investments in and work with automaker partners in developing self-driving technology. So, what about the drivers?
- Michigan may soon become the first state to allow self-driving cars on the road without a human driver sitting behind the steering wheel.
- The Ontario Provincial Police recently suggested that so far this year, it has investigated 38 road deaths in which a distracted driver was involved.
- What Amazon can teach auto insurance carriers about online retailing and enhancing the consumer experience.
- Vastly different story lines among Canada’s four public auto insurers.
- Self-driving Google cars will soon know when the police are approaching and to pull over to the side of the road.
Friday, 2 September 2016
Friday, 26 August 2016
Insurance News - Friday, August 26, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Friday, August 26, 2016:
- The Tesla autopilot crash has picked up a lot of attention. U.S. driver interest in self-driving cars dips slightly after Tesla crash.
- Auto insurer might sue Tesla over autopilot-related crash.
- Drivers still liable in accidents, even in near driverless cars, says Canadian law firm Borden Ladner Gervais.
- Telematics is the Betamax of insurance, the real seismic event in the industry will be the autonomous car.
- A Missouri man credited his self-driving Tesla for taking him to the hospital when he suffered a pulmonary embolism behind the wheel.
Monday, 22 August 2016
Sunday, 21 August 2016
Will The New Ontario Fleet Definition Work?
As I reported previously, the Ontario government amended the fleet definition in Regulation 664 in early July. The amended definition reads as follows:
From my perspective, this is not an ideal resolution. However, it does fill in the insurance gap that has existed since Uber began providing its services in Toronto in 2012. One of the most important elements in the fleet definition has always been the requirement that there be common management. Common management is an element that is required in order for a group of vehicles to be considered a fleet, if they are not commonly owned or where they are owned by a leasing company. It refers to the fact that the owner or manager has a measure of control over the vehicles. A fleet is typically a discrete risk exposure whose experience and characteristics can be monitored and rated, and is affected by the actions of the owner or manager. The vehicles in a fleet are not individually rated as this is inconsistent with a key principle in fleet rating to establish a rate specific to the experience of the fleet. Usually, the manager of a fleet will implement rigorous risk management programs to monitor and improve experience and rating.
None of these circumstance remotely exist when it comes to Uber drivers and their vehicles. They are network of drivers connected to customers through an app provided by Uber. Their is no common ownership or management. It suggest that once an Uber driver turns on the app on his phone, he or she becomes part of a fleet. That decision isn't even made by Uber.
Is this such a bad thing? It could be if it leads to further erosion of the fleet definition. The regulator has for years denied fleet policies because they failed to meet the test of common ownership or management. Will they be able to continue to push back against synthetic fleets? It would have been better, if the government had created a provision in the Insurance Act to deal specifically with transportation network companies. I expect it will take some time to determine whether the government and the insurance industry will regret the newly amended fleet definition.
“fleet” means a group of not fewer than five automobiles that meets the following requirements:
1. At least five of the automobiles in the group are commercial vehicles, public vehicles or vehicles used for business purposes.
2. The automobiles in the group are,
i. under common ownership or management, and any automobiles in the group that are subject to a lease agreement for a period in excess of 30 days are leased to the same insured person, or
ii. available for hire through a common online-enabled application or system for the pre-arrangement of transportation, and insured under a contract of automobile insurance in which the automobile owner or lessee, as the case may be, has coverage as an insured named in the contract
From my perspective, this is not an ideal resolution. However, it does fill in the insurance gap that has existed since Uber began providing its services in Toronto in 2012. One of the most important elements in the fleet definition has always been the requirement that there be common management. Common management is an element that is required in order for a group of vehicles to be considered a fleet, if they are not commonly owned or where they are owned by a leasing company. It refers to the fact that the owner or manager has a measure of control over the vehicles. A fleet is typically a discrete risk exposure whose experience and characteristics can be monitored and rated, and is affected by the actions of the owner or manager. The vehicles in a fleet are not individually rated as this is inconsistent with a key principle in fleet rating to establish a rate specific to the experience of the fleet. Usually, the manager of a fleet will implement rigorous risk management programs to monitor and improve experience and rating.
None of these circumstance remotely exist when it comes to Uber drivers and their vehicles. They are network of drivers connected to customers through an app provided by Uber. Their is no common ownership or management. It suggest that once an Uber driver turns on the app on his phone, he or she becomes part of a fleet. That decision isn't even made by Uber.
Is this such a bad thing? It could be if it leads to further erosion of the fleet definition. The regulator has for years denied fleet policies because they failed to meet the test of common ownership or management. Will they be able to continue to push back against synthetic fleets? It would have been better, if the government had created a provision in the Insurance Act to deal specifically with transportation network companies. I expect it will take some time to determine whether the government and the insurance industry will regret the newly amended fleet definition.
Sunday, 31 July 2016
Insurance News - Sunday, July 31, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Sunday, July 31, 2016:
- Tesla and Google are taking different approaches to developing self-driving cars.
- Uber drivers in Ontario are now automotically insured,
- Auto insurance rates still rising, despite province's pledge to lower them.
- Uber plans to collect street-view photos in Mexico to further lays the groundwork for a fleet of autonomous vehicles.
- Canada tops the list of wealthy countries in the percentage of road fatalities related to alcohol impairment.
- Customers sour on insurers' UBI discount model.
Friday, 22 July 2016
Insurance News - Friday, July 22, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Friday, July 22, 2016:
- A prominent Toronto lawyer who pursued a frivolous action on behalf of a client was found personally liable Tuesday for the legal costs.
- What will your car have to do for the police to pull you over when you’re in an autonomous car?
- In the U.S., being on the lower end of the wage scale can mean paying much more for auto insurance, even for good drivers.
- As self-driving cars change transportation, how will infrastructure adapt?
- Details on the first self-driving car death involving Tesla S using autopilot.
- Ontario’s program to allow testing of self-driving cars on public roads has not received any applications since it launched January 1,
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
Ontario Auto Insurance Rates Remain Chronically High
FSCO's latest quarterly rate approval numbers have been released and suggest that consumers will see very few savings the statutory accident benefit cuts that became effective on June 1.
FSCO approved 14 private passenger automobile insurance rate filings during the second quarter of 2016. These 14 insurers represent 30.06% of the market based on premium volume. Approved rates increased on average by 0.33% when applied across the total market. This follows the modest 3.07% reduction in approved rate filings in the first quarter of 2016.
The end of lower rate filing approvals indicate that the any savings derived from the recent reform package are small. A portion of the savings could be wiped out before the end of the calendar year if companies continue to file for increases. The government has abandoned the the 15% rate reduction promise made in August 2016. However, if you aggregate all the rate changes since the 2013 announcement, the total rate reduction is 9.84% when applied across the total market.
Product reforms have proven to be an ineffective tool for controling auto insurance premiums in Ontario. As long as transactional costs within the system remain high, Ontario drivers will continue to pay high rates. A new delivery system is needed to bring Ontario's costs in line with other jurisdictions. For a discussion on how to address the systemic problems in Ontario, see my article entitled Ontario's 25-Year No-Fault Journey.
FSCO approved 14 private passenger automobile insurance rate filings during the second quarter of 2016. These 14 insurers represent 30.06% of the market based on premium volume. Approved rates increased on average by 0.33% when applied across the total market. This follows the modest 3.07% reduction in approved rate filings in the first quarter of 2016.
The end of lower rate filing approvals indicate that the any savings derived from the recent reform package are small. A portion of the savings could be wiped out before the end of the calendar year if companies continue to file for increases. The government has abandoned the the 15% rate reduction promise made in August 2016. However, if you aggregate all the rate changes since the 2013 announcement, the total rate reduction is 9.84% when applied across the total market.
Product reforms have proven to be an ineffective tool for controling auto insurance premiums in Ontario. As long as transactional costs within the system remain high, Ontario drivers will continue to pay high rates. A new delivery system is needed to bring Ontario's costs in line with other jurisdictions. For a discussion on how to address the systemic problems in Ontario, see my article entitled Ontario's 25-Year No-Fault Journey.
Friday, 8 July 2016
New Ontario Towing and Storage Regulations Are Now In Effect
New regulations are now in effect if you repair, tow or store vehicles in Ontario. The new regulations under the Repair and Storage Liens Act took effect on July 1, 2016. Further regulations will come into force starting January 1, 2017.
The following new rules come into effect on July 1, 2016:
The following new rules come into effect on July 1, 2016:
- If a vehicle being stored is subject to a lien and is received from someone other than its owner or a person having the owner's authority, then the storer must give notice to the owner and other interested parties of the lien in writing (e.g. secured parties who have registered their interest, such as lease and finance companies).
- For vehicles registered in Ontario, the notice period is reduced from 60 days to 15 days after the day after the vehicle is received. If notice is not provided within 15 days, a storer's lien is limited to the unpaid amount owing for that period. The 60-day notice period remains unchanged for out-of-province vehicles.
- If no amount has been agreed upon for repair and storage costs, fair value may be determined by a court. There is a new list of discretionary factors a judge will be required to consider (such as fixed costs, variable costs, direct costs, indirect costs, profit and any other relevant factors).
Ontario Regulation 427/15 can be found here.
Thursday, 7 July 2016
Ontario Changes Fleet Definition To Accommodate Ride-Sharing
This week, the Ontario amended Regulation 664 to expand the definition of a fleet to accommodate ride-sharing services. The change opens the door for insurers to offer policies to drivers of vehicles for hire using an online app such as Uber.
The regulation amendment expands the fleet definition to include vehicles available for hire through a common online-enabled application or system for pre-arranged transportation. The vehicle owner or lessee is to be a named insured under an auto insurance contract. The regulation change will make it easier for Ontario businesses to insure a group of privately owned vehicles under one insurance policy as a “fleet” when they are available for hire using an online app.
FSCO has already approved a fleet policy proposed by Intact Insurance Company. The Intact policy provides blanket fleet coverage under a standard automobile owner’s policy (OAP 1) for private passenger automobiles used in the transportation of paying passengers who utilize Uber. The Intact fleet policy only provides coverage when the driver is logged onto the Uber online app. In other situations, coverage under the personal owner’s policy for the automobile is applicable.
FSCO has also approved the use of an electronic insurance card for use in connection with ride-sharing. The electronic insurance card will permit ride-sharing drivers, who are covered under the Intact policy the option, to provide evidence of insurance electronically using an online-enabled app (e.g., to law enforcement officials).
The regulation amendment expands the fleet definition to include vehicles available for hire through a common online-enabled application or system for pre-arranged transportation. The vehicle owner or lessee is to be a named insured under an auto insurance contract. The regulation change will make it easier for Ontario businesses to insure a group of privately owned vehicles under one insurance policy as a “fleet” when they are available for hire using an online app.
FSCO has already approved a fleet policy proposed by Intact Insurance Company. The Intact policy provides blanket fleet coverage under a standard automobile owner’s policy (OAP 1) for private passenger automobiles used in the transportation of paying passengers who utilize Uber. The Intact fleet policy only provides coverage when the driver is logged onto the Uber online app. In other situations, coverage under the personal owner’s policy for the automobile is applicable.
FSCO has also approved the use of an electronic insurance card for use in connection with ride-sharing. The electronic insurance card will permit ride-sharing drivers, who are covered under the Intact policy the option, to provide evidence of insurance electronically using an online-enabled app (e.g., to law enforcement officials).
Thursday, 30 June 2016
Insurance News - Thursday, June 30, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, June 30, 2016:
- The Ontario government is being urged to make a $65 million investment in the development of driverless car technology to help the province’s auto industry compete on a global scale.
- Ten different strategies shaping the transition to the self-driving car.
- Global sales of autonomous vehicles will reach nearly 21 million vehicles by 2035, a substantial increase from previous estimates.
- The US-based National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will implement federal regulations, but will have no say when it comes to the regulations made by the individual states.
- The self-driving car generation gap: older people see driving as representing personal freedom younger people do not.
- Study asks people if self-driving cars should make moral choices.
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
FSCO Mandate Review Recommends Changes to Auto Insurance Regulation
The Ontario government should establish a new organization that would perform the functions currently performed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario (DICO), an expert advisory panel said in a report released Monday.
The panel recommends that a new Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) be established, and it should exercise both prudential and market conduct functions. The panel – comprised of George Cooke, James Daw and Lawrence Ritchie – made its recommendation to create FSRA in an interim report released in November, 2015. The final report, dated March 31, was made public Monday and contains 44 recommendations.
The mandate review was partly made necessary with the transfer of responsibility for operating an auto insurance dispute resolution system from FSCO to Ministry of the Attorney General’s Licence Appeal Tribunal on April 1, 2016.
Governance
The report suggests that FSRA should consolidate functions, but it should have separate divisions for the regulation of market conduct; prudential oversight; and pension administration. These divisions of the regulator should operate in a coordinated manner, but each division should be insulated from the routine regulatory activities, pressures and resource demands of other divisions.
FSRA should be a self-funded corporation without share capital, operationally independent of government, yet accountable to the Legislature through the Minister of Finance. The FSRA should be outside of the Ontario Public Service and be empowered to hire its personnel from outside of the Ontario Public Service’s collective agreements, compensation restraints, and other hiring restraints to support its ability to recruit professionals and industry expertise as it deems necessary.
FSRA should have a skills-based Board of Directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Board would oversee FSRA’s operations and the Board should have the authority to appoint a Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Board Chair should report directly to the Minister of Finance.
FSRA’s Board should be given authority to make rules that would be enforceable pursuant to the statute, having a similar authority as Cabinet Regulations.
Auto Insurance Rate Regulation
The panel did not make any recommendations with respect to the prior approval of auto insurance. However, it did recommend that FSRA’s Board should be obliged and empowered to decide how auto insurance rates are to be regulated and make use of its rule-making authority to scope out a rate approval process.
The view of the panel is that when it comes to the regulation of automobile insurance rates, FSCO is not ultimately protecting the public interest or enhancing confidence in the sector.
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund
The panel recommends that responsibility for operating the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) be transferred to the Facility Association (FA), a non-profit organization funded by automobile insurers in the provinces and territories that operate private insurance systems. This responsibility would fit well with the FA’s original purpose, which is to act as the ‘insurer of last resort’ for high-risk drivers. The FA already operates uninsured motorist funds similar to the MVACF in the Atlantic Provinces.
Fraud Prevention
The panel indicated that the new mandate should require FSRA to utilize its statutory authorities to adequately, firmly and consistently discourage fraudulent activities or behaviours that mislead or harm consumers and pension plan beneficiaries.
FSRA should be directed to identify and seek to eliminate gaps in protection for consumers who might be defrauded by licensed sales agents, brokers and corporations. FSRA should also have the authority to establish a fraud compensation fund such as exists in Quebec if or where enhancements to mandatory insurance coverage would not fully close current gaps.
There is no word from the government on implementing the panel's recommendations.
The panel recommends that a new Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) be established, and it should exercise both prudential and market conduct functions. The panel – comprised of George Cooke, James Daw and Lawrence Ritchie – made its recommendation to create FSRA in an interim report released in November, 2015. The final report, dated March 31, was made public Monday and contains 44 recommendations.
The mandate review was partly made necessary with the transfer of responsibility for operating an auto insurance dispute resolution system from FSCO to Ministry of the Attorney General’s Licence Appeal Tribunal on April 1, 2016.
Governance
The report suggests that FSRA should consolidate functions, but it should have separate divisions for the regulation of market conduct; prudential oversight; and pension administration. These divisions of the regulator should operate in a coordinated manner, but each division should be insulated from the routine regulatory activities, pressures and resource demands of other divisions.
FSRA should be a self-funded corporation without share capital, operationally independent of government, yet accountable to the Legislature through the Minister of Finance. The FSRA should be outside of the Ontario Public Service and be empowered to hire its personnel from outside of the Ontario Public Service’s collective agreements, compensation restraints, and other hiring restraints to support its ability to recruit professionals and industry expertise as it deems necessary.
FSRA should have a skills-based Board of Directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Board would oversee FSRA’s operations and the Board should have the authority to appoint a Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Board Chair should report directly to the Minister of Finance.
FSRA’s Board should be given authority to make rules that would be enforceable pursuant to the statute, having a similar authority as Cabinet Regulations.
Auto Insurance Rate Regulation
The panel did not make any recommendations with respect to the prior approval of auto insurance. However, it did recommend that FSRA’s Board should be obliged and empowered to decide how auto insurance rates are to be regulated and make use of its rule-making authority to scope out a rate approval process.
The view of the panel is that when it comes to the regulation of automobile insurance rates, FSCO is not ultimately protecting the public interest or enhancing confidence in the sector.
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund
The panel recommends that responsibility for operating the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) be transferred to the Facility Association (FA), a non-profit organization funded by automobile insurers in the provinces and territories that operate private insurance systems. This responsibility would fit well with the FA’s original purpose, which is to act as the ‘insurer of last resort’ for high-risk drivers. The FA already operates uninsured motorist funds similar to the MVACF in the Atlantic Provinces.
Fraud Prevention
The panel indicated that the new mandate should require FSRA to utilize its statutory authorities to adequately, firmly and consistently discourage fraudulent activities or behaviours that mislead or harm consumers and pension plan beneficiaries.
FSRA should be directed to identify and seek to eliminate gaps in protection for consumers who might be defrauded by licensed sales agents, brokers and corporations. FSRA should also have the authority to establish a fraud compensation fund such as exists in Quebec if or where enhancements to mandatory insurance coverage would not fully close current gaps.
There is no word from the government on implementing the panel's recommendations.
Saturday, 18 June 2016
Insurance News - Saturday, June 18, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Saturday, June 18, 2016:
- A recent FSCO survey revealed that 90% Ontarians do not know much about their auto insurance coverage.
- New York legislators want to make self-driving cars accessible, but must first fix a 1971 law that requires at least one hand on steering wheel.
- Three threats to incumbent car companies are converging into a tidal wave of disruption.
- Almost half of marijuana-smoking Canadian drivers say that they can safely operate a vehicle while stoned.
- How data analytics will change the insurance sector as never before.
Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Insurance News - Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Wednesday, June 8, 2016:
- Ontario consumers satisfied with auto insurance despite government failures to reduce rates according to a J.D. Power survey.
- A CCIR paper confirms that no legislative changes are needed to introduce electronic pink slips. See my recent post on electronic insurance cards.
- Florida officials are calling for a $125,000 study to consider dropping state’s system of no-fault Personal Injury Protection auto insurance.
- Google has registered a patent for a glue would stick pedestrian to a self-driving car after a collision in order to reduce injuries.
- Will the convenience and accessibility provided by self-driving cars increase auto usage, and congestion?
- With reduced SABs coverage, brokers who fail to offer their customers sound advice run the risk of an E&O lawsuit.
Monday, 30 May 2016
Insurance News - Monday, May 30, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, May 30, 2016:
- Auto insurance is a sore spot for many Canadians. Many believe they are paying too much for premiums while receiving too little in return. Although customer satisfaction is improving.
- It's almost June 1 and mandatory accident benefit coverage in Ontario will be shrinking.
- Speakers at the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's first forum on the topic offered mixed opinions about whether the arrival of self-driving cars should be slowed or sped up.
- GM and Lyft will be using Chevy Bolts as autonomous taxis in selected U.S. cities in 2017.
- An Ontario woman blindly followed her car's GPS straight into Lake Huron. Self-driving cars got to be better than this.
- The owner of a Tesla Model S says that his semi-autonomous car crashed into the back of a trailer while he thought it was parked. Tesla Motors isn't so sure that's what happened.
Thursday, 26 May 2016
LAT Have Mercy
On April, 1, 2016, Ontario's Licence
Appeal Tribunal's (LAT) Automobile Accident Benefits Service (AABS) was
officially open for business. After 26 years, the Financial Services Commission
of Ontario (FSCO)'s Dispute Resolution Group stopped accepted new applications.
The transfer of responsibility has created considerable apprehension among its
users. FSCO was flooded with new applications in the weeks leading up to April
1st. For many, it's a matter of 'better the devil you know.' What will this change mean for stakeholders? Will it really be different?
How did we get here?
The establishment of the AABS at LAT
brings to a conclusion a process that began with the appointment of the
Honourable J. Douglas Cunningham in August, 2013. Justice Cunningham was asked
to review the auto insurance dispute resolution system. He was asked to make
recommendations to the government to address a significant backlog, in disputed
autoinsurance claims pending mediation and arbitration, that
existed at the time - and to propose system improvements.
His report - delivered in February 2014 - included 28 recommendations. As a
result, Bill 15, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates
Act, 2014 included a provision transferring responsibility for resolving
disputes over statutory accident benefits from FSCO to LAT. Regulation changes
filed by the government on March 7, 2016 - which came into effect on April 1 -
was the final step in implementing the new dispute resolution system.
What are the changes?
- The only dispute resolution process available to parties is an arbitration through LAT.
- Mandatory mediation is no longer part of the dispute resolution process.
- No court action can be commenced for statutory accident benefits disputes, even where there is a companion tort action.
- There is no right of appeal, other than a reconsideration option with the Executive Chair of the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals of Ontario (SLATSTO) for exceptional circumstances and the Divisional Court on a question of law.
- A total of 22 new full-time and part-time LAT adjudicators have been appointed to date. Auto insurance stakeholders will be interacting with a largely unknown group of adjudicators as only three have had experience resolving disputes at FSCO.
- LAT is committed to resolving most (90%) disputes within six months.
What happens to FSCO?
Applications for mediation, neutral
evaluation and arbitration have not been accepted since March 31, 2016. A
mediation, arbitration, court proceeding, appeal, variation or revocation that
was commenced before April 1, 2016 may be continued at FSCO after that date. If
a mediation fails before April 1, 2016 , an application for arbitration can
only be made to the LAT on or after April 1, 2016. Applications to the Director
of Arbitrations - for appeals, variation or revocation - may only be made where
the application for arbitration was received by FSCO before April 1, 2016.
How does LAT work?
Since there is no longer mandatory
mediation, an applicant will be able to apply for arbitration following the
denial or termination of statutory accident benefits. The applicant (an insured
or insurer) files an Application for Arbitration with LAT. The other party
files a response.
It is intended that all procedural issues,
lack of production, or failures to attend insurer examinations are to be dealt
with upfront by the Registrar. LAT may dismiss an application without a hearing
if (1) the claim is an abuse of process, (2) the matter is outside the
Tribunal's jurisdiction, (3) the statutory requirements for bringing the
application have not been met, or (4) the party filing the application has
abandoned the process. This is a significant departure from the FSCO process
which included preliminary hearings. However, if LAT is reluctant to dismiss
these applications, then the gatekeeper function, envisioned by Justice
Cunningham, will not be put into practice.
The first step in the arbitration process
is a case conference. This is the settlement meeting described in Justice
Cunningham's report. It must take place within 45 days of the date LAT receives
an application. The case conference is analogous to a FSCO pre-arbitration
meeting except most will take place over the phone instead of in-person. Prior
to the case conference, the parties are required to outline the documents to
used at a hearing, any production issues, the preference for the type of
hearing (written, video/telephone or in-person), a list of witnesses and
details of the most recent settlement offer.
Should the dispute not be resolved at a
case conference, then a hearing will take place within 60 days. The type of
hearing will be decided by the adjudicator at the case conference. Decisions
will be issued within 30 days for written hearings, within 45 days for
video/telephone hearings and 60-90 days for in-person hearings.
Lingering concerns
There is no LAT appeal process other than
the possibility of a reconsideration by the Executive Chair of SLATSTO if there
is a clear error that was made by the adjudicator. Appeals based on merit are
not available. A party can apply for judicial review where there is a question
of law.
Is this a significant departure from the
FSCO process?
The
simple answer is yes. But how much different can only be determined over time.
The forms and practice rules are simpler. In an attempt to create a different
culture, very few FSCO arbitrators have been appointed to LAT. Some see this as
a good thing while others are concerned. But it does add an element of
uncertainty for an initial period.
There are other elements of the new
process to be concerned about. Justice Cunningham recommended the creation of
statutory timelines and sanctions regarding settlement meetings (case
conferences), arbitration hearings and the release of arbitration decisions. He
felt that there need to be strict adherence to timelines and that creating
statutory obligations was the most effective way of accomplishing this.
However, no statutory timelines have been created and instead LAT will manage
timeline requirements. This is essentially how things existed at FSCO. What
will happen if the parties are not ready for a quick hearing? Will adjournments
become common occurrences? Stakeholders will be waiting to see if the promised
timelines will be met or erode over time.
In response to criticism of FSCO practices
in conducting mediations, Justice Cunningham recommended that settlement
meetings (case conferences) be conducted in-person or by video conferencing. He
rejected telephone meetings. LAT will
predominantly be conducting case conferences over the phone. Considering that
FSCO pre-arbitration meetings are in-person, this is really a step backwards.
Justice Cunningham wanted hearings to
follow three streams: paper reviews, expedited in-person hearings and full
in-person hearings. He recommended criteria be adopted to determine which
stream a case falls under. Those criteria have not been adopted. Instead, the
LAT adjudicator will exercise his or her discretion to determine the format of
a hearing. At FSCO, similar discretion existed but all hearings were
in-person. Although LAT has suggested
that many hearing will be paper reviews, will stakeholders pressure
adjudicators to provide more in-person hearings?
A number of other recommendations by
Justice Cunningham seemed to have been abandoned. The settlement of future
medical and rehabilitation benefits were to have been prohibited until two years
after the date of the accident. The SABS have not been amended and settlements
will still be permitted one year after the date of the accident. In addition,
every insurer was to establish an internal review process as the first step in
the new dispute resolution process. It does not appear that all companies have
established an internal review process.
Conclusion
A lot of time and effort has gone into
creating the AABS at LAT to replace the dispute resolution process at FSCO. One
of the problems identified by Justice Cunningham has been the culture
surrounding the previous system. LAT has
made a considerable effort to create a new culture. However, the new
adjudicators will be dealing with the same clientele and will need to interpret
the same complex and frustrating statutory accident benefits. It will take some
time to determine how much different the new system is.
Monday, 16 May 2016
Insurance News - Monday, May 16, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, May 16, 2016:
- Uber, Google and Ford form self-driving car coalition to urge government action on self-driving car tech.
- Regulatory change demands insurers show regulators using telematics data for claims management would help consumers.
- There is a lot of speculation around what the world will look like when there are self-driving cars on the road. For example, one in four drivers (the person behind the wheel) are expected to sleep while in self-driving car.
- An expert from the Canadian Automated Vehicles Centre of Excellence warns that there will be a lot of sex behind the wheel.
- Then there is the NATO security expert who warns that Islamic State technicians are working to produce driverless car bombs.
Saturday, 14 May 2016
Insurance News - Saturday, May 14, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Saturday, May 14, 2016:
- Is an outdated loyalty system the only thing keeping brokers from oblivion?
- Canadians can now rent their personal vehicle to others through a U.S. company that has just launched in this country. It's like AirBnB for car owners. But should you do it?
- A new ride-hailing app made exclusively for women will now launch in the U.S. nationwide this fall after being met with overwhelming demand from users.
- Auto insurance rates in Ontario have dropped about 10 per cent on average in the past few years, putting the Liberal government two-thirds of the way to a goal that passed eight months ago.
- Who's responsible when a self-driving car crashes? In short term it will be drivers but in long term it will likely be manufacturers.
- Classifying the different levels of vehicle autonomy. Most cars will not be at the top level for many years.
Friday, 29 April 2016
Insurance News - Friday, April 29, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Friday, April 29, 2016:
- The driverless car revolution is taking the world by storm, but Canada has been slow to join. Only one Canadian province, Ontario, has allowed autonomous cars to be tested on its roads.
- Self-driving cars are at the mercy of crappy roads where it is common to see faded lane markers, missing signs and other side effects of our aging roadways.
- It looks like Toronto will have separate rules for taxis and ride-sharing companies.
- The next step in autonomous vehicles: Toyota's ‘guardian angel’ self-driving vehicles allows drivers to control vehicles until they mess up. Then the vehicle takes control from the driver to prevent a crash.
- There are rumours circulating that the Tesla 3, which will be available beginning March 2018, will be the first truly self-driving car.
- Uber, who has largely introduced the ability to measure usage in miles not months, has led to the creation of new models.
Tuesday, 26 April 2016
Benefit Cuts Lead To Modest Rate Reductions
FSCO's latest quarterly rate approval numbers have been released and suggest that some savings have been accrued from the statutory accident benefit cuts that become effective on June 1.
FSCO approved 50 private passenger automobile insurance rate filings during the first quarter of 2016. All 50 filings were automobile insurance reform filings. These 50 insurers represent 83.36% of the market based on premium volume. Approved rates decreased on average by 3.07% when applied across the total market. This is the largest drop in rates since the fourth quarter of 2013 when approved rates decreased on average by 3.98% when applied across the total market.
Although the government has begun to distance itself from the 15% rate reduction promise made in August 2016 (likely an admission that it can't be achieved), most people are, at least, curious how close the latest round of cuts got us to 15%. If you aggregate all the rate changes since the 2013 announcement, the total rate reduction is 10.17% when applied across then total market. There may be further reductions in the next quarter but it's safe to say that this is about it.
FSCO approved 50 private passenger automobile insurance rate filings during the first quarter of 2016. All 50 filings were automobile insurance reform filings. These 50 insurers represent 83.36% of the market based on premium volume. Approved rates decreased on average by 3.07% when applied across the total market. This is the largest drop in rates since the fourth quarter of 2013 when approved rates decreased on average by 3.98% when applied across the total market.
Although the government has begun to distance itself from the 15% rate reduction promise made in August 2016 (likely an admission that it can't be achieved), most people are, at least, curious how close the latest round of cuts got us to 15%. If you aggregate all the rate changes since the 2013 announcement, the total rate reduction is 10.17% when applied across then total market. There may be further reductions in the next quarter but it's safe to say that this is about it.
Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Insurance News - Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Tuesday, April 5, 2016:
- Self-driving vehicles will learn everything about you—and influence your behavior in ways you might not even realize.
- Telematics will revolutionize insurance by transforming it from a fixed-cost operation into a variable-cost one.
- Zoox is the latest entrant in the self-driving-car derby wanting to develop Uber-like driverless service.
- MIT suggests interconnected roads and self driving cars will not need traffic lights or road signs (although pedestrians still will).
- UberX car is collateral damage in high-speed police chase of an SUV leaving three people with very serious injuries. Is Uber's "auto insurance policy" going to cover these possibly catastrophic claims?
Monday, 21 March 2016
Insurance News - Monday, March 21, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, March 21, 2016:
- Nova Scotia will allow drivers to voluntarily pay back their insurer for minor damage and have the accident registered as not at-fault.
- Existing U.S. laws pose few barriers to adoption of autonomous vehicles so long as they allow humans to take control.
- Undercover investigators hired by Aviva capture alleged car insurance fraud on video.
- Uber to begin replacing drivers with 100,000 Mercedes-Benz S-Class self-driving cars starting in 2020.
- Google wants U.S. Congress to create new federal powers that would let the technology giant receive special, expedited permission to bring to market a self-driving car that has no steering wheel or pedals.
Friday, 18 March 2016
LAT Will Not Be Following All of the Cunningham Recommendations
The Licence Appeal Tribunal
(LAT) begins accepting applications to resolve auto insurance disputes on April
1, 2016. LAT has completed a first round
of recruitment for adjudicators and case management staff. Adjudicators are Order-in-Council
appointments. Training of adjudicators
and staff is underway.
FSCO will continue to
operate beyond April 1, 2016. If
mediation has been completed, but the arbitration process has not begun, a
party can apply to LAT and begin the new process. If the case already has been assigned an
arbitration case number by FSCO, the case remains at FSCO. Existing cases will not be transferred from
FSCO to LAT.
Although the new system follows the
recommendations put forth by Justice Cunningham in 2016, a number of
recommendations have been modified:
Justice Cunningham
recommended that mandatory mediation (along with pre-arbitration hearings) be
eliminated and that a settlement meeting be held before arbitration
(Recommendations #4 and #13). LAT has
created a case conference prior to arbitration which follows the intent of
settlement meetings proposed by Cunningham.
Justice Cunningham
recommended that statutory timelines and sanctions regarding settlement meetings,
arbitration hearings and the release of arbitration decisions be created
(Recommendation #6). However, no
statutory timelines have been created and LAT will manage timeline
requirements. This is essentially the
status quo.
Justice Cunningham
recommended that the policy of no application fees for claimants at the
settlement meeting stage be continued (Recommendation #7). LAT has introduced a $100 application fee.
Justice Cunningham
recommended that settlement meetings be conducted by video conferencing rather
than by telephone in cases where it is not feasible for the parties to meet in
person (Recommendation #14). LAT is continuing
the current practice and most case conferences will take place over the phone.
Justice Cunningham
recommended an adjournment fee be charged to the party requesting an
adjournment in the absence of exceptional circumstances (Recommendation #16). No adjournment fee has been established.
Justice Cunningham
recommended that the settlement of future medical and rehabilitation benefits be
prohibited until two years after the date of the accident (Recommendation #17). The SABS have not been amended and
settlements will still be permitted one year after the date of the accident.
Justice Cunningham
recommended that each insurer establish an internal review process (Recommendations
#19, #20 and #21). A company internal
review process has not yet been established.
Justice Cunningham
recommended criteria for streaming disputes to paper reviews, expedited
in-person hearings and full in-person hearings (Recommendations #25, #26 and
#27). The criteria have not been
adopted. LAT adjudicators will exercise
his or her discretion to determine the format of a hearing, which is the status
quo.
Below is the full dispute resolution process:
Wednesday, 9 March 2016
Insurance News - Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Wednesday, March 9, 2016:
- It was inevitable that a Google self-driving car would cause an at-fault accident. A Google car got into a minor fender-bender struck a bus on a city street and Google admits fault.
- Fleets of coordinated, self-driving cars could bring an end to parking as we know it and help make our urban future cheaper, greener and much more pleasant.
- With driverless cars soon to be a reality, should humans be allowed to drive?
- Mississauga city councillors vote to halt Uber services while they debate a solution.
- This is an interesting article on how self-driving cars may be following similar path as elevators.
Monday, 29 February 2016
Insurance News - Monday, February 29, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Monday, February 29, 2016:
- Bramalea-Gore-Malton MPP Jagmeet Singh wants industry profits used to drive down auto insurance rates.
- The U.S. National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration told Google that the artificial intelligence system that controls its self-driving car can be considered a driver under federal law.
- Uber has agreed to pay $28.5 million to about 25 million passengers to settle two San Francisco class actions over the way it advertises its services.
- Google is killing off the car-insurance comparison tool that it rolled out last year.
- Uber's popularity is prompting Canadian insurance companies to introduce coverage for drivers carrying paying passengers in their personal vehicles.
Friday, 19 February 2016
Electronic Proof...Still Not in Canada
Three years ago, I wrote an article about the status of electronic insurance cards. Despite the
fact that smartphones, tablets and other technological gadgets are now part of
everyday life, providing proof of auto insurance coverage is
like a nostalgic trip back to the days of our parents or grandparents. In Canada,insurance companies and brokerages continue to mail, fax and e-mail copies of the
standard pink insurance slips to policyholders upon renewal or policy changes.
Back in 2012, the Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America (PCIAA) reported that 11 U.S. states had laws or
regulations on the books that allow for electronic insurance cards to be used
for both vehicle registration and when being pulled over by the police. The PCIAA now reports that 43 U.S. states
have enacted legislation which permits some form of electronic proof of
insurance including electronic delivery and the use of an electronic image as
evidence of coverage. Clearly, electronic insurance cards are well accepted in the U.S.
Why is the U.S. and Canadian experience so different?
For one thing, not all Canadian jurisdictions use the
standard 'pink slip.' The
public insurers in British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have combined
the insurance card with and the provincial motor vehicle registration card. Quebec is a little different because private
insurers sell physical damage coverage and must provide an insurance
certificate. There is no colour
requirement and the document can be emailed, although electronic proof of
insurance is still not permitted.
In Canada, there has been a perception that electronic
delivery of insurance cards or electronic proof of insurance might be more at risk to fraud. In fact, the paper
insurance card is quite susceptible to fraud.
Police officers have no way to validate whether a pink slip provided by
a driver is valid and unexpired, and therefore are inclined to just accept it.
There are also concerns regarding privacy and
liability. When a driver hands over his
or her mobile device to a police officer to show proof of insurance, can the
officer access other information on the device?
What happens if the police officer drops and damages a mobile device
while verifying insurance coverage? Who Is liable for damages?
The U.S. experiences provide numerous
examples of statutory or regulatory approaches to addressing these issues. In Canada, many legal barriers to e-commerce
have been eliminated. Yet the insurance
sector has clung to paper insurance cards.
In Ontario, there is no legislative requirement that
insurance cards be in paper form. The Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act (sections 3 and 6) requires
that a driver must always have an insurance card in their vehicle and must make
it available to a police officer for inspection. It does not stipulate what the card is to
look like. The Ontario Superintendent of
Financial Services sets out the content, size and colour of the insurance card
through a bulletin. Consequently, the
Superintendent has the authority to approve an electronic insurance card. No statutory amendment is likely required.
It is inevitable that electronic proof of insurance will
come to Canada. The technology exists. It
just seems that no one particularly wants to be the first to make the move.
Friday, 12 February 2016
Insurance News - Friday, February 12, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Friday, February 12, 2016:
- Trial lawyers and victims group call for inquiry into the use of medical evidence by auto insurers in insurance claims. Personally, I believe this is symptomatic of a much bigger problem.
- A startup at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology hopes to replace insurance agents with artificial intelligence and make buying auto insurance as easy as texting a photo of your license plate.
- Uber lost its bid to freeze a lawsuit bound for trial over California drivers’ demands to be treated as employees while the company appeals rulings that dramatically increased the stakes in the case.
- A recent Usage-Based Insurance (UBI) study forecasts that 380 million semi, highly or fully autonomous vehicles (AVs) will be on the road by 2030. In the decade preceding 2030, the penetration of active safety and autonomous vehicles will reduce the number of accidents by more than 30%, leading to a significant reduction in insurance premiums.
- Uber is piloting a new way to check the quality of its drivers — by monitoring their driving, speed and distractedness via their smartphones, using the devices’ geolocation information, accelerometers and gyrometers (which reveal whether a person is, for example, moving their phone around while driving) - essentially a telematics application.
Thursday, 11 February 2016
Insurance News - Thursday, February 11, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Thursday, February 11, 2016:
- Developers of driverless cars promise fewer deaths and injuries from car accidents.That could also mean fewer cases for lawyers who handle auto injury litigation, but opinions differ on how much of a threat driverless cars pose to lawyers' livelihoods.
- The guy who solved Uber’s insurance problem has no insurance background.
- Google is disappointed to learn that driverless cars will need a driver in CaliforniaThe state's Department of Motor Vehicles wants someone behind the wheel in case something goes wrong.
- Meanwhile, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration told Google that the artificial intelligence system that controls its self-driving car can be considered a driver under federal law.
- Edmonton will become the first Canadian city to allow ride-sharing companies like Uber to legally operate after city council approves a ride-sharing bylaw.
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Insurance News - Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Wednesday, January 27, 2016:
- Kathleen Wynne says pledge to cut auto insurance 15 per cent was a ‘stretch goal’ - classic govt speak!
- Ontario's finance minister is hard-pressed to explain why he continued to declare publicly that the government would meet an election pledge to cut auto insurance rates despite being aware that keeping the promise would be challenging.
- Canadians are wary of self-driving cars. They would rather see technology make driving safer.
- Google's monthly report for its self-driving car project is in, and according to data recorded by onboard computers, the car's human drivers intervened 13 times between September 2014 and November 2015 to avoid an accident.
- Is State Farm preparing for the end of auto insurance?
- The biggest roadblock facing driverless cars is not government regulation but lawyers.
- Windsor wants to become test site for self-driving vehicles.
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Insurance News - Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Here are the leading auto insurance headlines from ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE TOPICS ON TWITTER for Tuesday, January 26, 2016:
- Town of Stratford has built connected infrastructure to attract self-driving cars for testing over the past decade.
- Uber's impact being felt as San Francisco's largest cab company Yellow Cab to file for bankruptcy.
- Why baby boomers embrace sensor-driven cars, but doubt self-driving cars.
- While claiming their self-driving cars have not caused an accident, Google also reports self-driving car mistakes: 272 failures and 13 near misses.
- Google wants to form more partnerships with automakers and suppliers in 2016 to accelerate work on self-driving cars.
- Obama boosts self-driving car development with $4 billion investment.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Ontario's Failed Rate Reduction Strategy
The promise to reduce auto insurance premiums by 15% is a failure.
In August 2013 the Ontario government announced a two-year rate reduction strategy. What has ensued since that announcement has been a series of reforms to bring down the cost of insurance. Many of those reforms include no-fault accident benefit reductions.
So how successful has the strategy been? Last week FSCO posted the fourth quarter rate approvals for 2015. The FSCO post indicates that rates fell a minuscule 0.15% in the quarter. For the entire year, rates fell by just 1.0%. Since August 2013, rates have only come down by 7.1%. That's not even half of what the government has been trying to achieve.
Premier Kathleen Wynne now calls the 15% rate reduction strategy a "stretch goal". That's as close as you're going to get a government to admit to failure.
Another round of no-fault accident benefit cuts are to be introduced on June 1 of this year but don't expect them to bring down rates by a significant amount. The accident benefits portion of the Ontario in 2014 was only 33.5% of claim costs (see the chart below). That would mean for a further 8% reduction in premiums, accident benefit costs would have to go down by about 24%. Meanwhile, some of the accident benefit cuts will drift over to third party liability costs since not at-fault accident victims will be able to sue for benefits no longer available through no-fault.
It's time the government undertake a comprehensive review of the auto insurance system and resolve the systemic problems plaguing the system. Half measures lead to "stretch goals" and chronically high insurance premiums.
In August 2013 the Ontario government announced a two-year rate reduction strategy. What has ensued since that announcement has been a series of reforms to bring down the cost of insurance. Many of those reforms include no-fault accident benefit reductions.
So how successful has the strategy been? Last week FSCO posted the fourth quarter rate approvals for 2015. The FSCO post indicates that rates fell a minuscule 0.15% in the quarter. For the entire year, rates fell by just 1.0%. Since August 2013, rates have only come down by 7.1%. That's not even half of what the government has been trying to achieve.
Premier Kathleen Wynne now calls the 15% rate reduction strategy a "stretch goal". That's as close as you're going to get a government to admit to failure.
Another round of no-fault accident benefit cuts are to be introduced on June 1 of this year but don't expect them to bring down rates by a significant amount. The accident benefits portion of the Ontario in 2014 was only 33.5% of claim costs (see the chart below). That would mean for a further 8% reduction in premiums, accident benefit costs would have to go down by about 24%. Meanwhile, some of the accident benefit cuts will drift over to third party liability costs since not at-fault accident victims will be able to sue for benefits no longer available through no-fault.
It's time the government undertake a comprehensive review of the auto insurance system and resolve the systemic problems plaguing the system. Half measures lead to "stretch goals" and chronically high insurance premiums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)