Insurers Playing a Numbers Game Ahead of Insurance Discussions

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC, the association that represents Canada's insurance carriers), took out a full page ad in the Toronto Star on Saturday, wherein they lined up their major talking points for the next round of insurance discussions.

By law, a 5-year review of the auto insurance system will start this year. The 2008 review resulted in the September 2010 reforms, the effects of which are still not completely understood. I blogged about the ramifications of the 2010 reforms a couple of weeks ago.

Among a number of astounding assertions, the Star ad suggested that Ontario's 2011 accident benefits claim payouts averaged $28,978, while in Alberta they were $3,568. While the figures themselves might be correct, what they do not reveal is that the Ontario figures include payouts made on claims arising from the pre-September 2010 legislative changes.

In my experience, one thing that insurers hate is someone telling them that they might have made  a mistake.

Those legislative changes reduced accident benefits payouts for all minor injuries to a maximum of $3,500, including all assessment costs (my colleague Alex Voudouris provides a good examination of the minor injury issue here). 80-90% of all claims made after September 2010 have been classified as minor injuries by insurers. Therefore, the use of pre-2010 claims payout numbers by the IBC is very misleading.

The ad also alleges that, "Lawyers challenging many cases has led to a backlog of 13,000 claims."

Well.

The flip side of that coin is that insurers, by wrongfully denying legitimate claims, lead victims to ask lawyers to help fight for their rights.

In my experience, one thing that insurers hate is someone telling them that they might have made  a mistake. The harsh truth is that a cavalier denial of a claim by an insurer, and an equally cavalier refusal to reconsider that denial, can ruin someone's life. It is only when lawyers shed light on such cases that victims have a chance at justice.

Insurers are in business to make money. Paying claims costs insurers' money. These types of ads demonstrate that insurers, through their mouthpiece organization, will say or do anything to get to the point that they can collect premiums and not have to pay claims.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

The Oscar Pistorius Murder Case

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: The Oscar Pistorius case murder investigation is grabbing headlines around the world. He stands accused of murdering his girlfriend, 29-year-old model and law graduate Reeva Steenkamp. Today, he appeared in court at a bail hearing.

Originally, the reports had Pistorius (famously known as the Blade Runner) mistaking his girlfriend for an intruder and shooting her dead. When heard like that, the story is tragically plausible. Don't think so? Consider the case of another South African athlete, former rugby player Rudi Visagie.

Some years ago, Visagie awoke in the dark hours of the morning and thought his daughter's car was being stolen. He fired a shot out his window and hit the driver. Moments later, he found his daughter dead behind the wheel. She had been on her way to surprise her boyfriend on his birthday, but hadn't told her parents the plan.

So yes, mistaken identity can happen, with lethal results.

Pistorius in court for a bail hearing. Photo by Stephanie de Sakutin/AFP/Getty Image

As the Pistorius investigation has unfolded in the last few days, however, it hasn't looked good for the defense. From the National Post:

Oscar Pistorius told a packed courtroom Tuesday that he shot his girlfriend to death by mistake, thinking she was a robber. The prosecutor called it premeditated murder.

The double amputee said in an affidavit read by his lawyer at his bail hearing that he felt vulnerable because he did not have on his prosthetic legs when he pumped bullets into the locked bathroom door. Then, Pistorius said in the sworn statement, he realized that model Reeva Steenkamp was not in his bed.

“It filled me with horror and fear,” he said.

He put on his prosthetic legs, tried to kick down the door, then bashed it in with a cricket bat to find Steenkamp, 29, shot inside. He said he ran downstairs with her, but “She died in my arms.”

The presumption of innocence and guilt beyond a "reasonable" doubt are fundamental tenets of a modern criminal law system. Still, as I read the stories on this murder, I began to wonder how believable it was that a man could not know whether his girlfriend was beside him in bed, and further, what he thought a thief would be doing in his bathroom in the middle of a break-in?

Will the prosecution's version that this was a premeditated murder be proven? Will Pistorius' celebrity status hurt him or help him in the proceedings? Time will tell. Hopefully the whole truth will come out.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Thoughts on the Rob Ford Conflict of Interest Decision

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: The Divisional Court of Ontario recently ruled on Rob Ford's appeal of his conflict of interest case. They found that the mayor could not be ousted from office.

The Court ruled that City Counsel did not have the power to compel the Mayor to return the funds that he had collected for his football fund. Accordingly, he could not be found to be in a conflict of interest for taking part in a vote to return the funds in the first place.

The decision itself is quite dry but it is always better to read these things for yourself. There's a good postmortem of the decision's key points here.

The next chapter in the saga will be the cost disposition. Should Paul Magder - the man who brought the suit forward - be hit with the Mayor's legal costs, which will no doubt be exorbitant? It could be argued that this was really a public interest lawsuit, and that the complainant should not be dealt with punitively. On the other hand, it should not be either easy or cheap to challenge a public figure who then must defend themselves and rack up legal bills.

Perhaps if a case such as this has merit, it is something that should be pursued by the Crown Attorney, and not necessarily proceed as a privately driven matter.

In any event, we'll see what happens next. According to Magder's lawyer, Clay Ruby, they will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Time will tell if the Supreme Court will have a listen, or if the case will finally be put to rest.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Law Times Looks at FSCO Backlog

I'm pleased to say that I was quoted in the Law Times regarding the backlog at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario:

Albert Conforzi of Pace Law Firm thinks the challenging aspect of the arrangement will be in the quality of the assistance given. “The mediators at FSCO have great training and experience and a knowledge base that they bring to mediation. My concern is whether or not the ADR Chambers mediators, although no doubt properly trained mediators, have a sufficient knowledge base to deal with the nuances of the accident-benefits regulations.

“We who use the FSCO system regularly go for the specialized knowledge versus the trials and tribulations of going to court where you may get a judge with very little experience with accident benefits. If you end up with an ADR mediator or arbitrator, it may lead to a result that you wouldn’t otherwise have got. The jury is still out.”

You can read a couple of my posts that deal with the FSCO backlog here and here, too.

A Legal Perspective on Chronic Pain

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: The greatest challenge in the personal injury field regarding the resolution of chronic pain cases is that most of them fall under the heading of a subjective complaint. That is, the client is telling you about the pain they are experiencing, but there is no clear cut medical evidence - an X-ray or MRI scan, for instance - to objectively support the claim.

It is rare for there to be an “objective” topology for reported pain and limitation of function. In those rare cases where objective evidence is present, the resolution of compensation issues isn't usually a problem.

The challenge in chronic pain cases stems, in large part, from the inherent skepticism of the insurance industry. Insurance personnel are institutionally-motivated and rewarded for their skepticism. Their primary focus is to limit claim amounts, as opposed to separating meritorious claims from frivolous ones.

We also have a legal system which is oriented to "cause and effect" questions. While chronic pain has been recognized at the highest court levels as a legitimate claim for damages, claimants face the hurdle that self reporting is the only way to know if they are suffering from chronic pain.

Insurance adjusters and insurers' counsel pore over every word of medical documentation for the slightest hint of skepticism about the veracity of the complaint. The goal is to undermine the credibility the claimant.

Despite significant advances in diagnostic technologies, it is presumptuous and naive to assume that diagnosis has achieved a level of certainty from which flows the legitimate conclusion that an absence of “objective” findings means that either the pain is not “real” or  is purely psychosomatic in origin.

Dry, “observational” language in recording self-reported symptoms for assessments and treatment recommendations can have a powerful impact on legal outcomes. While it is essential for assessors to maintain their professional integrity by objectively assessing and reporting on chronic pain scenarios, it is equally important for them to avoid relegating the self-report aspects of a case to “second class” evidentiary status.

Insurance adjusters and insurers' counsel pore over every word of medical documentation for the slightest hint of skepticism about the veracity of the complaint. The goal is to undermine the credibility the claimant, thereby limiting their exposure or forcing a minimal settlement. A medical assessor, concerned primarily with the therapeutic welfare of the patient, might well be unaware that their words, if poorly chosen, can seriously impair the patient's efforts for legitimate legal recovery.

Individuals experiencing chronic pain typically have been subjected to multiple diagnoses, various unsuccessful therapeutic interventions, and overt skepticism. They can understandably feel demoralized and frustrated. Nonetheless, unless there are clear reasons for discounting their self reported symptoms, it is essential that medical assessors be alert to the wider implications of their reports so as to avoid victimizing the chronic pain victim a second time.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Maybe The Decision Makers Will Learn This Time?

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: It is hard to conceive of someone not having heard about the deadly rampage that led to 26 deaths in Newtown, Connecticut. These were children and teachers who were completely innocent, but who were nevertheless victims of senseless gun violence.

All of the guns were obtained legally by the shooter's mother who was herself murdered by her son. She was described in news reports as a gun enthusiast.

How many more people have to die in these killing sprees before the gun lobby in the United States loses its voice? The usual mantra aside from the Constitutional right to bear arms, is to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The truth is that people with guns kill people. In this case, guns were within the grasp of someone with mental health issues and 26 people are now dead.

The American decision makers never seem to learn anything from these senseless tragedies. Maybe this time?

In this season of advent, we celebrate hope, joy, love and peace. For 26 families there will only be horror and loss.

In this season of advent, we celebrate hope, joy, love and peace. For 26 families there will only be horror and loss. For them, this season will always mark the anniversary of this nightmare and how their lives were changed forever.

Life sometimes spins out of control and there seems to be no reason why. In cases like this, the reason for it itself defies reason. Add access to guns to the mix and this is the result.

I hope that all my relatives, friends and colleagues will spend as much time as they can with those who matter most to them in this Christmas season.

Please have a safe, happy and healthy New Year. Please don't drink and drive.

My blog will be back on the first Monday of 2013.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

A Busy Year for Accident Benefits Decisions

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: 2012 has been a very active year at the Ontario Court of Appeal in the area of accident benefits decisions.

Last Wednesday, the Court of Appeal released its reasons in Cornie, which dealt with the mediation backlog at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

The Insurance Act requires all disputes for benefits to be mediated at FSCO before an applicant can proceed to Arbitrate or Litigate such disputes. The backlog of mediations currently sits at around 31,000 files, and from the time that you file your papers to when your mediation is heard, the wait can be approximately one year. That is an eternity when you are waiting for benefits. The Insurance Act and regulations actually require that the mediation be held within 60 days after the mediation application is filed. So what gives?

Thankfully, the Court confirmed that "60 days" means "60 days" and "filing" means "filing."

In Cornie and 3 other cases that were heard at the same time, the issue was whether a party could proceed to arbitrate or litigate a matter if the mediation was not held within the 60 days. FSCO itself took the position that the 60 days did not run from the filing of the mediation application - as in the regulation - but rather the 60 days ran from when a mediator was appointed to hear the case. The injured parties took the position that 60 days from filing meant 60 days from filing. The insurers opposed the injured parties as well. In my view, their self interest was in seeing the delay extend as long as possible (here's another post of mine which mentions how insurers view the backlog issue).

Thankfully, the Court confirmed that "60 days" means "60 days" and "filing" means "filing." Accordingly, a party may ask for a failed mediator's report 60 days after filing an Application for Mediation if a mediation has not been held.

The danger now is that the backlog in mediations is simply going to be pushed to the Arbitrations unit at FSCO. Time will tell whether that fear materializes and to what extent it happens.

Trials Aren't Tea Parties

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: A leading Canadian corporate lawyer is before a discipline panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada for being "uncivil."

The case arises from the lawyer's successful defence of his client in the now famous securities fraud case which followed the Bre-X financial disaster. The lawyer, Joe Groia, successfully defended the Chief Geologist of the company, in a case that lasted a number of years.

The presiding judge did not sanction any of the lawyers at any point in the proceedings. A judge who later reviewed the case concluded "neither side in this case has any monopoly over incivility or rhetorical excess."

One can conclude from this comment that the trial was pitched battle. Neither side was interested in taking prisoners. Just so, as trials are not tea parties. Both sides should expect that quarter is neither asked for nor given. In this case, however, the Law Society decided to prosecute Mr. Groia for professional misconduct arising from his alleged "incivility."

While lawyers must remain mindful of the line between being aggressive and being rude, they are still duty bound to fearlessly advocate for their clients. The Law Society has for a number of years been trying the promote civility in the legal profession, but to my mind there is no actual definition of what constitutes "incivility."

The Law Society seems to be making an example of Mr. Groia. In a case where both sides were apparently behaving in a similar manner, and where the trial judge made not one comment to either Counsel, one must wonder why Mr. Groia is being singled out. One could also speculate whether this case would have been brought at all if he had lost the original case.

It will be worth keeping an eye on this one.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

New Techniques to Help People With Brain Injury

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: My father once said to me that the mark of a truly smart person is the understanding not of what they know, but rather the understanding of how much they don't know.

When we talk about medicine, and the findings that are constantly being explored and found, it really brings that expression into focus.

It was not that long ago that X-rays were the most advanced form of medical imaging available. Since that time, of course, CT scans, EMG studies, MRI and fMRI are among the medical imaging advances that make plain old X-ray seem like the dark ages.

All of this leads to a fascinating article and video that I came across last week. Doctors and researchers are using brain activity as a communication tool to show that some persons who are in a profoundly vegetative state can still understand and respond through that brain activity:

A Canadian man who was believed to have been in a vegetative state for more than a decade, has been able to tell scientists that he is not in any pain.

It's the first time an uncommunicative, severely brain-injured patient has been able to give answers clinically relevant to their care.

Scott Routley, 39, was asked questions while having his brain activity scanned in an fMRI machine.

His doctor says the discovery means medical textbooks will need rewriting.

While statistically the number of people who suffer this level of catastrophic injury are very few, this cutting edge interface between imaging and injury is being utilized to improve the recovery from other forms of serious injury. I am pleased to be able to help my clients in accessing these additional types of diagnostic tools. They simply lead to better results.

While it is indeed a marvel at what is being done, it is even more profound to consider the secrets that are left to be unlocked.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Something Good For Claimants - For Now

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: On September 27, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued a long awaited ruling dealing with the case of Pastore v. Aviva Insurance Company.

The case dealt with the interpretation of the definition of catastrophic impairment in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). A catastrophic impairment designation opens up an extended range of benefits for people injured in an accident. These benefits include medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

Unless you work in the legal or insurance industry, or know someone who has been involved in a catastrophic injury case, you may be surprised to learn that being declared "catastrophically impaired" does not result in an automatic payment of ANY sort. The only thing that it does is open the door to qualify for further benefits beyond the non-catastrophic limits.

In Mrs. Pastore's case, she had suffered an ankle fracture when she was struck by a car. The injury later resulted in knee problems due to altered gait, and led to disabling chronic pain. In turn, the chronic pain resulted in psychological impairments. She was declared by physicians to have suffered a marked catastrophic impairment due to her mental and behavioural disorder in the realm of the activities of her daily life.

The question was, could only one area of marked impairment be enough to be catastrophically impaired, or do you need two, three or four?

The insurer Aviva disputed the designation at every level possible, resulting in three separate decisions before the Court of Appeal. The thrust of their argument was that the AMA guides identify 4 areas of behavioural disorders. Mrs. Pastore was found to have a marked impairment in one area only. The question was, could only one area of marked impairment be enough to be catastrophically impaired, or do you need two, three or four? The insurance company argued that a finding of marked impairment in only 1 area was simply not enough.

In its unanimous decision, The Court of Appeal found that the legislation supported Mrs. Pastore's version, that "a marked mental and behavioral impairment" does indeed mean that one is enough.

Now that the insurance industry has lost this important case, I fully expect the insurers to lobby the government for a change to the SABS to reflect their own interpretation. Historically, the government has caved to insurer demands. Though it is difficult to understand why the government would enter the debate when the courts have commented, in my opinion the insurance industry lobby is very strong and very intent on eliminating benefits payable to claimants to the greatest extent possible.

We shall see whether history will repeat itself.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays. 

Dog Owners Beware: There Is No "Free Bite"

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: If you have been bitten or otherwise seriously injured by a dog, you will want to know that in Ontario, you do have rights and recourse against dog owners.

In Ontario, The Dog Owners Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 c D.16 is the applicable statute. Under this Act, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for any damage or injury caused by the animal.

Once you prove who owns the dog, and that the dog injured you, the owner must pay damages as assessed by a court or upon settlement for that damage or injury. Of course, sometimes just finding out to whom a dog belongs can be a challenge, as evidenced here. Even after you've discovered the name of the owner, the next hurdle you will face is whether that owner has any form of insurance that would cover the damages.

Prior to The Dog Owners Liability Act, the law used to be that if an owner was unaware of their dog's propensity to bite, that owner was not necessarily responsible for damages to an injured person. Hence the colloquial expression, "one free bite," before liability would be imposed. That is no longer the case.

Even if you are just taking care of a dog for a friend, and that dog injures someone while in your possession, you will be treated as an owner for the purpose of the Act. (s.1, harbouring a dog). It doesn't matter whether you "own" the dog or not, nor whether you knew if the dog had a history of biting people. Again: no free bites.

Still, the Act isn't completely unsympathetic to the dog owner, or perhaps to the dog itself.

If you have been injured and are pursuing a dog owner, you might be told that you are partially at fault. For example, if you were taunting the dog and it attacked, you might face an apportionment for your actions.

In one recent case, an 11-year-old girl was found 25% at fault for going into her grandmother's dog pen, without permission or supervision, where she was nearly mauled to death, and was left with gruesome scarring. The Toronto Star notes that Ontario Superior Court Justice Darla Wilson reduced the $245,000 award — originally set by another judge — by 25 per cent because she found the victim, now 18, contributed to her own misfortune.

Assignment of some blame notwithstanding, it is important that you recognize your right to compensation if you have been attacked by a dog. After you have sought medical attention, be sure to consult a lawyer as soon as possible.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Alleged Insurance Fraud Makes a Big Splash

Albert Conforzi

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi - I read with interest about the recent arrests made in alleged fraudulent staged collisions in the GTA. It is likely we will never hear whether a single conviction takes place.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) spent a total of 18 months investigating 9 collisions before they turned it over to the police. One of these collisions involved a van that sat 5 passengers where there were 7 claims. One wonders how long it took for that investigation. The IBC claims that claimants would receive up to $75,000 for participating in the scam.

Those who are in the system know that this cannot be factually correct. These were "soft tissue claims," which are routinely treated as minor injury claims by the insurance industry. For these injuries, there is a treatment cap of $3,500, including assessments. A treatment cap means that claimants don't get the money - it goes to the clinics. A clinic would not stay in business very long by paying people $75,000 for a maximum return of $3,500.

That's not all. A soft tissue claim in tort would be subject to a $30,000 deductible. Insurance companies like Aviva - the biggest insurer in Ontario -  refuse to pay these type of claims all the time. It is again difficult to believe that this scam would work against such a sophisticated and organized industry.

Insurers are supposed to treat their customers with the utmost good faith, and not as adverse claimants. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is.

It isn't a stretch to believe that the insurance industry is doing some of their usual fear mongering. They have trotted out the same fraud statistics for the last 20 years.

Keep in mind that the cost of fraud is simply passed on to the consumer by insurance companies, and it's been that way forever. Think about it. If fraud has been roughly the same annual component of gross premiums since at least 1990 when they started crying about it, the very first year's increase in premiums would have covered and continued to cover fraud to today. Instead, the IBC continues to raise the fraud flag as the lever to extract reductions in coverage from successive governments that affect all consumers.

I'm not suggesting that fraud doesn't exist, nor that the people who practice it shouldn't be punished. But it is getting to the point where if a claimant has the temerity to make a claim for benefits which the insurance industry doesn't want to cover, then you, your doctor, your treatment facility and your legal representative are tarred with the same brush -- suspicion of fraud.

Those of us who practice in this area know that there is a 35,000 case backlog for mediation at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO), the largest, longest (1 year) backlog since it was created in 1990. The backlog is there because the insurance industry lives in a culture of denial, treating every claim and claimant with scepticism and doubt. Insurers are supposed to treat their customers with the utmost good faith, and not as adverse claimants. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is.

Consumers and claimants should not be subject to intimidation, which stops them from advancing a legitimate claim. I have dedicated my legal career to making sure that injured claimants get what they deserve for their injuries, and I will continue to fight for my clients' rights, no matter how long it takes. I just wish they weren't made to feel like criminals in the process.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Head Injuries In - and Out - Of the NFL

Albert Conforzi

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi - I came across an interesting piece about lawsuits in the United States regarding head injuries from playing NFL football. The NFL is suing over 30 insurers for refusing to defend the NFL in some 143 injury lawsuits brought by former players. I wonder how long it will be before similar types of lawsuits are attempted in Canada, and how the insurers here will respond?

In the past couple of years, there has been a lot of talk about head injuries in the NHL. Indeed, our own Facebook page is highlighting the plight of people suffering from concussions. The NHL, no doubt, is paying very careful attention to what is happening in the NFL.

The NFL news story focuses on the insurance issues that arise in these types of cases, especially where multiple insurers are involved. Whenever there are a series of insurers exposed to a risk there will always be a protracted argument about which one of them will be on the hook when something happens. In sports where there is constant or repeated injury, the question is: when did the blow occur that actually caused the injury? The answer to that question can help define which insurer was actually on risk at the time of the incident.

Marian Hossa after a head shot during the 2012 playoffs. (Chicago Tribune)

The knowledge base regarding head injury and its "long tail" effects is growing exponentially. Even mild traumatic brain injury is now recognized as having the potential to cause lingering effects long after the acute phase has subsided. The arguments about the sufficiency of headgear, whether it be for football, hockey, or skiing, is ongoing. Cases like the Sidney Crosby hockey injury or the skiing related death of actress Natasha Richardson continue to fuel research into the area.

My experience with traumatic brain injury lies more with motor vehicle accidents than it does with sports, but in my opinion they are both trivialized. In motor vehicle accidents, the potential long term impact of mild traumatic brain injury has long been viewed through rose coloured glasses by insurers to avoid compensating victims.

We are fast arriving at the point where insurers will no longer be able to deny what medical science is busy proving: head injuries have long term effects, and the effects are serious. Unfortunately, it seems that many people are going to be hurt before that message is received.

Albert Conforzi is a personal injury lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. His posts generally appear on Mondays.

Hard Work Nets $1.5 Million Payout for Client

Albert Conforzi

Toronto Personal Injury Lawyer Albert Conforzi: My client - we'll call her Ann - sustained serious injuries in an accident 4 years ago, with multiple fractures. The challenge in a case like Ann's is maximizing the recovery potential for the injured client, while at the same time creating risk for the insurer.

In our case, we used the accident benefits side of the auto policy to access every possible resource for Ann. This included everything from tutors, to speech language pathologists, to cell phones, in addition to traditional therapies. As a result of having put so many resources in place, Ann was able to achieve a very good recovery. However, we still thoroughly documented the challenges she would face going forward over the rest of her life.

Our advocacy efforts on behalf of our client resulted in a $1.5 million payout for Ann earlier this week, in addition to all of the funds and resources we obtained for her over the past few years. While nothing can turn back the clock and make it as if the accident never happened, these awards will help Ann live a better life with a more secure future.

It goes to show what hard work and dedication can do for your clients.

Simple Letter Solves Problem

Allan Chapnik

by Toronto Lawyer Allan Chapnik: Yesterday, over the phone, a potential new client told me that his mother had passed away and the insurance company refused to pay out on the credit insurance she had on a loan from the bank. They said it was because she died within 12 months of the loan (and the matching insurance) being granted. The problem was, the loan only had a 12 month term, and was in fact the third or fourth 12 month renewal of an older loan. It sounded like a great way to collect insurance premiums but never pay out.

I met with the guy today. He brought the insurance policy with him. It turns out it has a perfectly fair provision for loan renewals - only the insurance adjuster wasn't aware the loan was a renewal, and didn't know to apply it. So, instead of taking him on as a client, I helped this guy write a nice letter to his insurance company pointing out their oversight. I fully expect the insurance money to be paid out right away.

I've never been so happy not to be retained.

A Complicated and Unique Personal Injury Case

Phil Paglino

by Phil Paglino - Pace Law Firm: I was speaking with someone the other day about a personal injury case that I recently handled in Toronto.

Romita v. Sohi, 2010 ONSC 6587 (CanLII) (“Romita”) – The facts were complicated and very unique. The insurer of the Plaintiff's work vehicle admitted in its defence that it provided the Plaintiff with OPCF 44 R coverage (underinsurance coverage). However, a day prior to Examinations for Discovery, the insurer advised that it would be moving for an order withdrawing its admission of coverage. The Plaintiff also had a motor vehicle insurance policy on his family vehicle.

As a result of the insurer of the Plaintiff’s work vehicle sudden and drastic change in position, the Plaintiff had no choice but to try to add the insurer of his family vehicle to the claim. However, the insurer of the family vehicle vigorously opposed, arguing that the Plaintiff was in breach of the limitation period under the OPCF 44 R Endorsement.

The Plaintiff was substantially successful following the hearing of the motion. The insurer of the work vehicle was not allowed to withdraw its admission and the insurer of the family vehicle was added to the claim. The Plaintiff was also awarded $15,000 in legal costs following the motion. The insurer of the family vehicle launched an appeal, but this was denied.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE:

The facts of Romita are highly distinguishable from past cases where Plaintiffs were not successful in adding an insurer for underinsurance coverage. Courts in those cases held that the Plaintiff did not recognize that they had a claim for underinsured motorist coverage within the requisite limitation period. In stark contrast, Mr. Romita commenced an action for underinsurance coverage against the appropriate insurer within the prescribed time, as acknowledged by the Court.

Implicit in this decision is the recognition of our judiciary that there are situations where an insurer’s sudden and unexpected change in its opinion on insurance coverage could detrimentally impact a prudent Plaintiff who relied on those representations.

Toronto Personal Injury Law - Joanna Leong

Joanna earned her law degree from Queen's University in 2007 and was called to the Ontario Bar in 2008. While studying at Queen's, she was an active volunteer in the Queen's Law community and was awarded the David Sabbath Prize in Tax Theory and Policy upon graduation.

Prior to joining Pace Law Firm, Joanna worked at a prominent personal injury litigation law firm in Toronto, Ontario. She has appeared before the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Joanna is a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers' Association, the Advocates' Society, the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers, and the Ontario Bar Association.

You can reach Joanna by dialing 1-416-IINJURED, or by email here.

Be Careful With Social Media

Here's an interesting piece from Lawyers.com about being careful with your social media accounts, especially if you're involved in legal proceedings. While the rules vary from place to place on how the law treats social media, one thing is clear: Proceed with caution.

“Lawyers need to counsel their clients about social media and to instruct them to either stop posting or to update their accounts with honest information about their case,” Jackson says. “Also, people should not post anything that references their injury, accident or dispute without first talking to their attorneys.”

Read the rest here.

Toronto Personal Injury Law - Nancy Young

Toronto personal injury lawyer Nancy Young.

Nancy regularly appears before the Superior Court of Justice and has conducted numerous arbitrations, appeals and expense hearings at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. She has also appeared before the Landlord Tenant Board.

Nancy speaks fluent Chinese (Cantonese) and is a member of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Advocates Society and the Federation of Asian Canadian Lawyers.

If you have been injured in an accident or need legal advice, contact Nancy here and at 647-789-2349.