Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Alberta (Provincial) Politics This forum is for all Alberta related conversations.


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > Regional Issues > Alberta (Provincial) Politics
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2009, 12:48 PM   #1
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default Alberta wins case to cap whiplash claims

Alberta wins case to cap whiplash claims
By Karen Kleiss, edmontonjournal.comJune 12, 2009 11:02 AM

EDMONTON — Alberta government lawyers have succeeded in appealing a lower-court ruling that struck down the $4,000 cap on claims for soft-tissue injuries like whiplash.

In a case that could have repercussions for auto-insurance premiums across the country, Alberta’s Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the government Friday, a decision that could revive the province’s controversial automobile insurance reform package.

In a 32-page decision released Friday morning, the province’s highest court allowed the appeal.

“The (Minor Injury Regulation), when considered with the entire scheme of insurance reforms, does not infringe section 7 or 15 of the Charter,” Appeal Court Justice Patricia Rowbotham wrote on behalf of the three-member panel. “While the legislation does make a distinction on the basis of disability, it is not discriminatory.

Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...909/story.html
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 12:51 PM   #2
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default

^Yes! Great decision (although a total waste of money as a result of the stupid decision by the original judge). Sometimes, the law profession gets it right (although I expect it will now be appealed some more). Government is to set policy not lawyers. If we don't like the policy, we can vote our politicians out. I am pleased I will not spend a small fortune in insurance premiums for crazy claims anymore.

Last edited by moahunter; 12-06-2009 at 12:56 PM..
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 12:59 PM   #3
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

I'm not sure if I support this or not... while I think it's ridiculous that people sue for insane amounts of money when it's not warranted, what about the people who's costs for injuries received in an accident are more than $4K?
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 01:04 PM   #4
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default

^etown - if you fall over in your house and get an injury - what about then? We have public health care. I don't see why having somebody hit you with a motor vehicle, causing soft tissue injury (which is very diffiult to prove), should be like winning the lottery. I'm willing to sacrifice that potential lottery winning, for a significanlty lower insuance premium - I'll try be careful of others instead. If I want extra insurance for soft tissue risk, I'll go out and buy it on the market - no need for it to be forced on me.
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 01:09 PM   #5
DTrobotnik
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: jasper east
Default

^^yeah i think that this is just insurance companies not willing to actually pay out for injuries like their supposed. it's OUR money and they act like people are trying to rob them. If someone gets paid out an overinflated sum, their lawyers need to take it up with the judge. Government shouldn't meddle in private-corporate affairs unless it's damaging to the province (eq. oils sands environment issues, etc). They should make stiffer penalties for drunk, dangerous or irresponsible drivers.

The hike in premiums is just a way to get the general public to side with them, and (knock on wood) until people get in an accident themselves they will side with the insurance companies.

Last edited by DTrobotnik; 12-06-2009 at 01:12 PM..
DTrobotnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 01:11 PM   #6
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

The problem is... there are drivers who just aren't careful. Those people, when driving and causing an accident that causes injury, shouldn't get off the hook with only a $4K insurance payment. They should have to pay for the costs associated with these injuries, whether it is through insurance and MUCH higher premiums, or directly. I guess I don't know enough about these kinds of injuries to add much to the discussion... I'm just curious.
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 01:12 PM   #7
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
Government shouldn't meddle in private-corporate affairs unless it's damaging to the province (eq. oils sands environment issues, etc). They should make stiffer penalties for drunk, dangerous or irresponsible drivers.
I'm willing to go along with that, if the goverenment stops medling in private affairs by making insurance uncompulsory (like many countries).

As they aren't willing to do that, I now have the choice. If I want a lower premium but no whiplash lottery winning (won for me by a good lawyer), I pay the current premium. If I want a whip lash big pay out after an accident, I pay an extra $500 a year or so (or whatever it costs for the extra personal accident insurance), to get that.
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2009, 01:31 PM   #8
DTrobotnik
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: jasper east
Default

^ uncompulsory is a different topic all together, and i agree with being able to choose lower premiums.

Would the insurance industry's proposed 40% hike be optional? Or are they the ones that are going to rob everyone because they're not happy with the constitution?
DTrobotnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2009, 06:13 PM   #9
mi6_
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Good move. As a driver, it should be an accepted risk that you could be involved and injured in a collision, maybe due to some one else's actions. Just because you get injured doesn't mean you deserve a big payout. If you don't want soft tissue injuries in a collision, don't drive or ride in a motor vehicle.
mi6_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2009, 08:23 PM   #10
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

And if you don't want soft tissue injuries from a fall while out for a walk, don't walk anywhere.
And if you don't want soft tissue injuries from falling off a bike, don't ride a bike anywhere.
And if you don't want soft tissue injuries from walking into a lamppost, stay on unlit streets.

Soft tissue injuries are no big deal - until you sustain one.
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 01:21 PM   #11
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default Supreme Court asked to decide Alberta's soft-tissue injury cap

Supreme Court asked to decide Alberta's soft-tissue injury cap
Women contend limit a matter of fairness
BY RENATA D'ALIESIO, CALGARY HERALDJULY 22, 2009

CALGARY - Two Alberta women injured in separate car crashes will ask the country's top court to allow an appeal of the provincial government's controversial cap on insurance compensation for strains and whiplash.

Lawyer Fred Kozak said Tuesday his clients, Peari Morrow of Calgary and Brea Pederson of Edmonton, want to continue waging the legal battle, after the Alberta Court of Appeal last month ruled the province's limit on soft-tissue injuries is constitutional, overturning a 2008 lower court decision that struck down the $4,000 cap.

"For both of them, from the start this has been an issue of fairness," Kozak said. "The legislation was intended to take money away from innocent injured victims for the purpose of funding a small reduction in automobile insurance premiums, principally for high-risk drivers."

Kozak expects to submit an application brief seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court later this summer. He said fundraising to cover the women's legal costs is underway.

Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...333/story.html
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 01:54 PM   #12
moahunter
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default

^For the sake of my insurance premium, I sure hope they lose. If people want more than $4,000 of soft tissue coverage, buy extra accident insurance, don't force me to subsidize it.
moahunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 04:30 PM   #13
Who Dat?
Partially Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default

^etown - if you fall over in your house and get an injury - what about then? We have public health care. I don't see why having somebody hit you with a motor vehicle, causing soft tissue injury (which is very diffiult to prove), should be like winning the lottery.

The problem with this I see though, is that now that Chiropractors (who deal with a good portion of soft tissue injuries, are now not covered under the public health system,you have to have seperate insurance all together with that, and is 4k enough to cover all that?
Who Dat? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 08:35 PM   #14
edmonton daily photo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

there is chiropracter coverage under the Acident Benifit coverage of you Insurance policy. It is a not rated coverage, so if you use it, it does not effect your premium.
edmonton daily photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 03:49 PM   #15
razdrak
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Default

I was injured in a rear end collision a few days ago ... and my neck is killing me .
What should I do .... how to make a claim ?
razdrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 05:12 PM   #16
Gemini
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton
Default

If someone sustains a genuine soft tissues injury fine. It's the ones who think it's time to milk the insurance companies for thousands that are the problem. Unfortunately, it's hard to prove how bad a soft tissue injury is. I think insurance companies should have more survalliance on people who claim these injuries. We all know of people who have said they have injuries and a couple of days after they have settled they are down in Hawaii doing the limbo. How low can you (they) go.
__________________
Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.
Ricky Gervais
Gemini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 07:02 PM   #17
razdrak
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Default

Yeah , I understand . My injury is not severe but I would like to make a claim just in case It would be worse after a while.
What's the first step to claim for a soft injury ?
razdrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 07:47 PM   #18
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default

Speak to a lawyer.
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2009, 07:09 PM   #19
etownboarder
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Old Strathcona
Default Alberta injury cap stays after top court declines appeal

Alberta injury cap stays after top court declines appeal
Last Updated: Thursday, December 17, 2009 | 2:40 PM MT
CBC News

The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear the appeal of two Alberta women who argued the province's cap on auto insurance payouts for soft-tissue injuries was unconstitutional.

Peari Morrow and Brea Pedersen had suffered soft tissue injuries in separate and unrelated car accidents in 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Their appeal to the country's top court came after the Alberta Court of Appeal in June overturned a lower court decision that removed the cap, which was $4,000 when it was first introduced in the province's Minor Injury Regulation in 2004.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case means that ruling stands and the cap stays in place.

Alberta Finance Minister Iris Evans was pleased with the top court's ruling.

"I know that there will be people all over Alberta applauding — insurance brokers, people that got the benefit of lower rates because of the reforms we made," Evans said. "I think we're relieved that it's over and that constitutionally, it has ruled in our favour and it is a win, certainly on the side of insurance reform, because of that."

Full Story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...cap-stays.html
etownboarder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.