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...

Solution

The remedy is quite simple. The Injury Regulation should be completely removed on the basis:

  • THAT bodily injury claims were not the cause behind the premium increases from 1999 to 2004 and, as such, the rationale for implementing the regulation was based on misinformation; 
     
  • THAT the flawed definition of "minor personal injury" has resulted in not just minor injuries but all but the most catastrophic injuries being definied as a "minor personal injury" under the law; 
     
  • THAT it does not provide stability in premiums because claims were never the impetus behind the surge in premiums and therefore cannot now be the reason behind the current stability;
     
  • THAT it represents an unacceptable economic drain on the New Brunswick economy with in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars having been taken out of New Brunswick from 2003 to 2006;
     
  • THAT the New Brunswick Injury Regulation is the harshest legislation in all of Canada which in turn results in the most profitable market for auto insurance companies;
     
  • THAT to allow corporations to profit excessively at the expenses of innocent victims is at its very core morally incomprehensible especially when the injustice was predicted and that concrete economic data support the complete removal of the legislation; and
  • THAT a similar piece of legislation in spirit and intent was deemed discriminatory and unconstitutional by a Court in Alberta.
Home