A troubling trend resulting from vehicle accidents: a marked increase in the number of psychological injury claims.
And the development is most pronounced in Ontario.
Toronto Defence Lawyer Lee Samis: “my sense is that this increase in activity is largely related to changes in the Ontario automobile injury compensation models. Successive reforms have increased the economic incentives associated with these types of claims.”
That may sound somewhat cynical.
But adjusters handling injury claims tell of accidents where vehicles sustained minimal damage (under $1,000), but the vehicle occupants advised they had incurred psychological injury.
And so, insurance adjusters and policyholders alike are asking questions: Are psychological injuries objectively verifiable and quantifiable? Is their detection much more subjective than that of physical injury? Are some people significantly more susceptible to psychological damage than others? Will Ontario’s Auto Reform changes (effective September 1, 2010) influence the trend?
Is it reasonable that some are sufficiently fragile that a psychological injury could result from a minor incident, where the majority of people would sustain no ill effect? Is this something for which other motorists or insurers should be responsible to compensate?
The Supreme Court of Canada has weighed in on this issue in 2008 – albeit in a case not involving vehicle collision – saying “the law expects reasonable fortitude and robustness of its citizens and will not impose liability for the exceptional frailty of certain individuals”. *
*Supreme Court of Canada – Mustapha v. Culligan (2008)
some info sourced: Canadian Underwriter magazine– January 2011 (Craig Harris)
Tags: Automobile, claims, coverage, damage, injury, insurance, Liability, psychological, risk, safety
Comments
RSS Updates
Email Updates
Follow via Twitter
Become a Fan
Let's Connect
Watch Video Blogs
Check out photos
Stirling
February 15, 2011 at 10:19 am
I wouldn’t doubt a lot of people are sustaining ‘psycological injuries’. Not because the event was particularly traumatic, but because we’re being conditioned to be more and more sensitive.
But of course the lure of a quick buck is strong so no doubt some of these claims are false, especially when the social stigma of being labelled as suffering from psychological impairment has diminished so much over the last 40 years.
It’s too bad we’re seeing these trends because people who are real victims of a traumatic accident may be missing out on the help they need due to cynicism created by false claimants.
cd
February 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm
A standard must be set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada in this regard. Although, I believe it’s quite possible for some susceptable individuals to sustain a pyscological injury from a minor auto accident, fradulent claims made by some opportunistic people could force the courts to address this particular issue sooner than later.
cd
February 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm
A standard must be set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada in this regard. Although I believe it’s quite possible for some susceptable individuals to sustain a pyscological injury from a minor auto accident, fradulent claims made by some opportunistic people could force the courts to address this particular issue sooner than later.