Home    Français   
The Injury Regulation: Insurance Reform Gone Wrong
The Injury Regulation: Insurance Reform Gone Wrong
The Injury Regulation: Insurance Reform Gone Wrong
The Injury Regulation: Insurance Reform Gone Wrong
The Injury Regulation: Insurance Reform Gone Wrong
Facts Myths Gov't Intent Profits Victims FAQ Solution News Contact Us

Report

New Brunswick’s Injury Regulation: Automobile Insurance Profits, Premiums, and Costs .pdf

How You Can Help

If you have been a victim of the Injury Regulation, you realize how easily you could become one, you are bothered by the fact the insurance industry is being allowed to profit unreasonably at the expense of victims and the New Brunswick economy, or you simply have a problem with the basic unfairness of the cap, you can do your part to help us persuade the government to remove it from the books.

More...

Government Intent

The Insurance Industry's laments and the intent of the goverment were all aimed at "minor personal injuries".  There is no disputing that when the government wrongly decided to assist the Industry in adopting legislation curtailing auto victims' rights, the intent was that the $2500 cap would only apply to "minor personal injuries". Evidence of this can be found in the Hansard, the official record of legislative assembly debates. On that very subject, then Justice Minister Brad Green indicated: 

  • ... This bill will provide for limited, targeted capping of personal injury claims for injuries such as whiplash, neck and back sprain, or other personal injuries that are minor or non permanent. A victim's right to fully recover economic losses will not be limited, as this right is an essential part of truly fair system. 

         Hansard Excerpt - March 28, 2003 - Introduction and First Reading of Bills

  • “…sections 3 and 8 of Bill 54 will amend the Insurance Act to provide for limited, targeted capping of personal injury claims for injuries such as whiplash, neck and back sprain, and other personal injuries which are minor or non-permanent in nature.”

         Hansard Excerpt - April 1, 2003 - Debate on Second reading of Bill 54

  • “ ...We are targeting non-economic awards in soft-tissue injury cases and in cases where the personal injuries are not permanent in nature. We believe that these types of claims have caused insurance costs to rise, in turn leading to higher and higher automobile insurance premiums for all drivers…Damages for pain and suffering for serious injuries will also not be affected by this proposed legislation.”

    Hansard Excerpt - April 1, 2003 - Debate on Second reading of Bill 54

The above excerpts from the Hansard also show that the former government believed the Insurance Industry’s assertions that bodily injury claims were the cause and reason behind the dramatic surge in premiums from 1999 to 2004. Today, this is shown to have been totally innacurate by virtue of the Insurance Industry's own economic data from 1996 to 2006.  Throughout their lobby efforts from 1999 to 2003, their own figures showed that bodily injury claims were not only under control but in fact were actually decreasing

Home