The next time you see one of those feel-good ads on TV, in a newspaper or on the radio for a insurance company, don't forget that it really is all about the money for insurance companies.   Okay, lawyers work for money too, but we earn it based on the results we get for our clients in pursuing claims against large insurance companies.

A recent case, illustrates just how much money gets thrown around by insurance companies in their efforts to grab further market share.   The Ontario Superior Court released its' decision in Sun Life v. Metropolitan Life, 2010 ONSC 558 (CanLII) on January 22, 2010.   This case is a reminder of the type of stakes involved when one insurer acquires another.   In July, 1998, The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada (which changed its' name to Clarica and was then purchased by Sun Life in December 2002), paid $2.2 billion dollars to Metropolitan Life for its' Canadian life insurance related businesses.

The case is about one insurer alleging that they are entitled to further reimbursement or indemnification from liabilities flowing from policies issued by Metropolitan Life prior to its' takeover by Sun Life.    The concern that Sun Life has is that they do not wish to be stuck with the cost of fixing the cost structure of certain policies that Met Life had issued in the past, where their allegations of misrepresentations about the cost of these policies to the end individual policyholders. 

The ins and outs of this particular case will not matter to you if your claim has been denied, be it for long term disability benefits, life insurance or critical illness, but it certainly does reinforce the notion that money really does matter to insurance companies.    Does anything else matter to them?   Absolutely, just nothing matters more than money.

By Leanne Goldstein B.A., LL.B. 

By David Share L.L.B.

President, David Share Associates, Lawyers

By Shira Bernholtz B.A., LL.B.

Many people find it hard to organize the paperwork required as a result of a motor vehicle accident.  There is no simple alternative to having the correct documentation and information available.  Perhaps we can provide some insight and guidance.

The best strategy is to obtain a receipt for any expense even remotely connected to the accident.  It may not be compensable but trying to get proof of spending at a later date is very difficult.   Make sure receipts include a date, reason for the payment, location and of course an amount.  You can write-in any missing details.

At the same time, maintain a log of all related trips whether for medical services or otherwise.  Again, include the date, starting point, end location, reason, mileage each way and expenses incurred. 

Some expenses require a medical assessment, evaluation or report.

Be sure you use the correct form and include a cover letter indentifying submissions made to the insurance company.   Lastly, keep copies of all paperwork.

There is no guarantee that an insurance company will pay all submissions and not all expenses are eligible for repayment.  However, you won't lose money on a technicality or for not having sufficient proof of an expense.

By Kirk Sloane B.A.(Hon), LL.B.

Many disability claimants have heard or read about the following scenario: your disability insurer calls you on the phone, sends a representative to your home, or sends a letter proposing a lump sum payment to "buyout" either the future of your disability claim, a disputed portion of unpaid past benefits, or both. In many instances a buyout can be a desirable outcome, but a disability claimant needs to understand the ramifications of such a payment, have confidence that the proposed deal makes sense, and that the proposal is the best available option. Using experienced legal counsel can be an invaluable tool in assessing whether a buyout is the right thing to do and to ensure that the best deal possible is obtained.

One of the first considerations for an individual already receiving benefits is to determine the likelihood of the claim being terminated if the buyout proposal is rejected. Some insurers use the fear of a claim termination as a tactic to convince the claimant to accept a reduced amount. If the claim may truly be on the verge of a termination, however, there needs to be an assessment of the potential costs of a lawsuit and the likelihood of winning or losing the lawsuit. Those factors are essential in arriving at a sensible buyout figure.

Another important piece of the puzzle is to have a realistic assessment of the nature, extent and potential duration of a claimant's disability in order to make appropriate adjustments to the total future expected disability payments. In addition, a disability claimant needs a thorough understanding of the concept of the "present value" of future benefits in order to calculate the true value of the investment power of a proposed lump sum payment of future benefits.

When it comes to a buyout during litigation, the cost and risk factors for further litigation and the potential outcomes are much more prominent factors than in the claim context. In summary, buyout strategies can be complex and it is critical that a disability claimant utilize a lawyer with expertise in dealing with disability claims in order to ensure a satisfactory outcome.

By Leanne Goldstein B.A., LL.B. 

Employment provides financial sustenance and the ability to contribute to society. For many, their employment forms part of their identity, provides a means for self-expression and fuels self-worth. There are a vast number of individuals who have spent a great deal of their working life employed with the same company. Unfortunately, their loyalty is not always rewarded and sometimes in addition to dealing with the effects of their disability, they are dealing with employment issues at the same time.  

It is not uncommon for employers to threaten to terminate employees who are unable to return to work as a result of a disabling physical or psychological condition that prevents them from being able to perform their job duties. These employers send letters to disabled employees threatening to terminate their employment if they do not return to work by a certain date, setting up a "frustration of contract" argument.

At common law an employer may terminate an employee who is unable to work due to illness in certain circumstances, on the basis that the employment contract has been "frustrated". In order to succeed in such a case, the employer would need to prove that the employee's incapacity renders further performance of the employment contract impossible.

There are, however, certain cases in our courts that have held that the employment relationship cannot be frustrated if an employee is receiving long term disability benefits. The theory behind these decisions appears to be that in providing access to benefits the employer contemplated the possibility of an employee being unable to work at some point. 

Our courts have also considered the manner in which a termination or employment takes place. Employers are required to treat employees with good faith and even handedness at the time of their termination. Given that employees with disabilities are often more vulnerable to experiencing psychological distress, this issue becomes particularly pertinent.

In Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701, a 59-year-old employee was dismissed without explanation after fourteen years as a top salesperson. The manner of his dismissal led to him suffering from depression. Courts have relied on this decision to review the employer's conduct during termination. Where employers have for instance been dishonest and misleading with an employee, made unfounded allegations against an employee, withheld money from an employee and embarrassed an employee, the courts have considered this conduct in awarding damages.

The Human Rights Code provides a measure of protection to employees from discrimination on the basis of disability. An employer is required to offer a disabled employee accommodation in the form of modified employment (to the point of hardship for the employer) that would facilitate the employee's ability to perform their job. An employee who is dismissed as a result of being unable to work due to a disability may be able to make a Human Rights complaint against the company.  

Sometimes an employer terminates employment before an employee is able to make a claim for disability benefits, leaving the employee open to coverage issues should the employee attempt to make a claim for disability benefits after their employment has been terminated. Our courts have in certain situations found employers liable for providing disability benefits to employees terminated before or while they experienced a disability (see for instance: Re Stelco Inc. (2005 Ont. S.C.J.): Zorn-Smith v. Bank of Montreal (2003 Ont. S.C.J.): Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002 Ont. C.A.): Keays v. Honda Inc. (2005 Ont. S.C.J.).

In certain circumstances, employers provide disabled employees with a termination letter together with a severance offer suggesting that they are complying with their legal requirements. Many employees are unaware that statutory termination and severance pay are minimum legal requirements. Employees often believe that the employment standards payout is the maximum that they can receive. However, depending on the circumstances of a case the true value may be greater than the proposed offer based on common law damages. Often employees are forced to attend meetings and sign documents in which they give up their rights to pursue employment issues.

It is important to know and understand your legal rights at all times. Consulting with a lawyer familiar with the interplay between disability and dismissal is essential to ensure that your legal rights are protected.