Insurers, trial lawyers at odds over definition

     Insurers are confident that proposals in Ontario to redefine catastrophic impairments with auto claims have the potential to be workable and represent a vast improvement over the current regulatory treatment of the area.
    But the province’s trial lawyers association called the proposed modification of the definition completely unwarranted and said it will inject a considerable amount of uncertainty and cost into the system.
    The Financial Services Commission of Ontario superintendent has received 35 submissions in response to the final report of its catastrophic impairment expert panel.
    They show insurers are generally in agreement about what works and what doesn’t.
    The Insurance Bureau of Canada has made recommendations dealing in particular with the challenge of translating the medical/scientific language of the panel’s report into regulatory language.
    “To the extent possible, references in the regulation to the outcomes of various diagnostic tests should be accompanied by narrative language that describes the patient status needed to be identified through a test in order to qualify for enhanced benefits.”
    The bureau said it is “vitally important that the legislative language be sufficiently clear so that arbitrators and the courts understand the legislative intent pertaining to the determination of (catastrophic) impairment.”
    The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, on the other hand, listed a number of concerns it has with the panel’s report.
    It said there is no need to make the test more stringent.
    Because the current definition of catastrophic impairment remains largely as it was in 1996, there is a considerable body of jurisprudence — both at the FSCO level and with the Superior Court of Justice.
    “Meeting the definition of catastrophic impairment does not directly equate to an entitlement to the injured person.
    "It simply expands the monetary limits available to those who have suffered the most significant of impairments.”
    Much more in our May 30, 2011 edition, including comments from other stakeholders. If you are not a regular reader, go to www.thompsonsnews.com and click on subscribe on the right hand side of the page.