Lawyers’ Risk Appetite May Unwittingly Influence Their Clients’ Desired Exposure

Lawyers’ Risk Appetite May Unwittingly Influence Their Clients’ Desired Exposure

It is a well-established fact that litigation has risk.  The risk forms the basis of the “no win, no fee’ contingency fee agreements that are used by the majority of lawyers in retaining their personal injury clients. LAWYERS INFLUENCE THEIR CLIENTS’ RISK ASSESSMENTS A client’s appetite for risk is influenced not only by their lawyer’s professional assessment of their claim, but also by their lawyer’s personal risk appetite.   Clients will almost certainly ask their lawyer, “How good is my case?”,…

Read More Read More

Arch Insurance Canada Partners with Redress Risk on new Legal Expense Insurance Product

Arch Insurance Canada Partners with Redress Risk on new Legal Expense Insurance Product

Toronto, Ontario – January 13, 2017 Arch Insurance Canada Ltd., in partnership with Redress Risk Management Inc. (“Redress”), today announced the launch of a new Legal Expense Insurance (LEI) product in Canada.  The LEI product offers protection to personal injury plaintiffs against the potential costs associated with their claims. “LEI product uptake continues to be strong across Canada with expanding adoption by the legal community, which increasingly recognizes LEI as an important tool for their clients.  Lawyers and their clients…

Read More Read More

BridgePoint Indemnity Company (Canada) Inc. – Currently Under Restricted Operations

BridgePoint Indemnity Company (Canada) Inc. – Currently Under Restricted Operations

In the past, BridgePoint Indemnity Company (“BridgePoint”) was adamant that their product was not insurance and was not governed by the Insurance Act…..”their product was different, it was an indemnity, not an insurance policy.” Like an Oreo Cookie without the creamy middle An indemnity is a “contracted promise, an obligation by a person or company to provide compensation for a particular loss suffered by another person or company.” The problem is that an indemnity may be unsupported.  An indemnity is…

Read More Read More

PROTECT FIRST, STAY MOTIVATED AND REFLECT SECOND

PROTECT FIRST, STAY MOTIVATED AND REFLECT SECOND

Lawyers that go to trial will lose a case from time to time, regardless of their abilities.   Many factors outside of their control may contribute to a loss. For example, they may get an unfavorable jury or judge who has a bias in a direction against them; their witnesses may prove to be without credibility despite extensive preparation; or the other side may perform “trial by ambush” and produce a “smoking gun” at trial.  Maybe, despite their best efforts, the…

Read More Read More

FICOM Rules on BICO Indemnity Product – Issues Cease and Desist Order

FICOM Rules on BICO Indemnity Product – Issues Cease and Desist Order

In the matter of the Financial institution Act R.S.B.C. 1996, C 141 and BridgePoint Indemnity Company (Canada) Inc., FICOM ruled that BICO’s Certificate of Indemnity is a contract of insurance and that BICO is conducting insurance business. Hence, BICO is conducting insurance business in British Columbia without authorizations and is in breach of section 75 of the ACT. FICOM order pursuant to Sections 244(2)(a), (e)(ii), and (f), and 238 of the Act that: 1) BridgePoint Indemnity Company (Canada) Inc. immediately…

Read More Read More

Access to Justice – Cost Awards May Not Necessarily Be Proportional to Damage Awards

Access to Justice – Cost Awards May Not Necessarily Be Proportional to Damage Awards

  Limiting Cost Awards Encourages “hardball” Rule 49 Negotiations. “In my view, to impose a rule arbitrarily limiting the amount of costs to some proportion of the recovery when there has been no offer of settlement, or only a nominal offer as in this case, would undermine the purpose of Rule 49, which is to encourage settlement by attaching costs consequences for failure to make or accept reasonable offers.  It would also encourage the type of “hard ball” approach to…

Read More Read More

ATE successfully used to defeat a security for costs motion

ATE successfully used to defeat a security for costs motion

A recent Ontario Superior Court case, Grotz v. Hilton Garden Inn Toronto, has considered the effectiveness of an “after the event” insurance policy (“ATE”) in the context of a security for costs application.  An application was brought by the defendant for security for costs where the plaintiff resides in the State of California and, as a non-resident, he bears the burden of proving the effect on him should an order for security for costs be granted. The Judge ruled that the…

Read More Read More

Ontario – Rule 49 Offers – The end of Rider v. Dydyk

Ontario – Rule 49 Offers – The end of Rider v. Dydyk

The Ontario government introduced a minor, but significant change to the language under s.267.5(9) of the Insurance Act.  The change impacts how costs are to be calculated in auto tort matters and has significant consequences for the Plaintiff associated with Rule 49 Offers to Settle made before trial. Prior to the changes, a party’s entitlement was made without regard to the statutory tort deductible. This meant that, if a party was served with a formal offer, the opposing party simply…

Read More Read More

Good Practice

Good Practice

If a lawyer has a duty to discuss costs consequences with their client, then would the lawyer not have a professional duty to discuss ways of mitigating such costs consequences with their client? And would it not be something that the law societies should be promoting as good practice?