Call us at 604 875 1526

Request Quote

Here are some of the types of insurance that any kind of business must have

Thursday, April 30th, 2015

Tucson, AZ (SBWIRE) Business Insurance signifies one kind of security to any business. In times of acts of God and unexpected circumstances, business insurance is a great help.

risk

Usually, the kinds of business insurance and the levels of coverage are determined by the type of business itself. However, it may also affect lenders who are responsible for holding portions of the business as security against loans.

Here are some of the types of insurance that any kind of business must have:

General Liability Insurance. This kind of insurance is indeed a must, whatever the business is, even home-based businesses. In any case of claims for compensation from people outside the business, this general liability insurance provides protection.

Property Insurance. Business owners should always consider business interruption concerns business personal property, which includes office equipment, computers, inventory, or tools. This would protect any business from undesirable instances such fire, vandalism, theft and smoke damage.

Business Owner’s Policy (BOP). A typical business should involve these insurance policies. It is a combination of protection from all major property and even liability put together in one package. For many business owners, BOP would save money because of the bundle of services at lesser cost.

Worker’s Compensation. At any time, injury may occur to employees in the course of employment.In business, worker’s compensation protects the company and the employees.

Commercial Auto Insurance. This insurance involves the vehicles that carry employees and the products and equipment of the company.

Professional Liability Insurance. Commonly known as Errors and Omissions Insurance, failure to perform on the part of the policyholder, lost finance and error in the service are all covered in this type of insurance.

Directors and Officers Insurance. Directors and Officers Insurance protects the directors and officers of a company. It covers the costs or damages lost of any officers in a legal situation. It can also cover the defense costs from any criminal and regulatory investigations and trials.

Homeowner’s Insurance. Homeowner’s insurance, focused to protect the home of an individual against house damages or possessions in the home, is one of the most important kinds of insurance. Additionally, this type of insurance provides liability coverage against accidents in the home and property, as well. Homeowners insurance in Tucson, Arizona, for instance, is one of the least expensive because Tucson is given a rating based on its proximity to fire protection.

Life insurance. If there is an insurance that protects any person from death, it is the life insurance. This would not put too much financial burden on the family of the insurance holder who died.

Insurance is a good decision taken by any business owner. Understanding the differences of a variety of insurance types and getting involved with those are quite better decisions from sudden and paralyzing damages in the near future.


“The Standard Of Proof Does Not Change” For Subjective Soft Tissue Injuries

Tuesday, April 28th, 2015

­

Sensible reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, confirming that the standard of proof does not change for a tort claim based on subjective soft tissue injuries.

In last week’s case (Rabiee v. Rendleman) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear end collision.  The Defendant admitted fault but disputed injury pointing in part to the fact that the collision was minor.  In accepting the Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Madam Justice Sharma provided the following comments about the standard of proof in low velocity impact prosecutions:

[62] Given the findings of fact above, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has established on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused soft tissue injuries. The accident was clearly “a cause” of the soft tissue injuries…

[64] The defendants emphasize that Ms. Rabiee’s injuries were very mild and that there is little “objective” evidence of her injuries. They rely on Price v. Kostryba (1982), 70 B.C.L.R. 397 at 399 (S.C.) where McEachern C.J. quoted his own words in Butler v. Blaylock, [1981] B.C.J. No. 31 (B.C.S.C.) that “the court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery” and that no one can expect citizens to be responsible for compensating a plaintiff “in the absence of convincing evidence.”

[65] I do not take these quotes to mean that a stricter standard of proof applies where the main evidence about injury comes from a plaintiff’s subjective reports to doctors and testimony in court. The standard of proof does not change and it does not matter if the evidence is “objective” or “subjective”. In fact, after considering the above quotation, the Court of Appeal in Butler v. Blaylock, [1983] B.C.J. No. 1490 (B.C.C.A.) clarified:  “It is not the law that if a plaintiff cannot show objective evidence of continuing injury that he cannot recover. If the pain suffered by the plaintiff is real and continuing and resulted from the injuries suffered in the accident, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.”

[66] The key consideration is whether the evidence, as a whole, establishes that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence on a balance of probabilities. I have concluded that Ms. Rabiee has met that burden. Thus, the fact that the evidence of her injuries is based largely on subjective reports does not detract from the application of the Stapley factors…

71] Taking into account all of the cases and my conclusions about the evidence in this case, I find Ms. Rabiee is entitled to $40,000 for non-pecuniary damages.


Defendant Home Warranty Insurer Need Not Pay Claim Before Issuing Third Party Notice Against Those Responsible for Damage

Friday, April 24th, 2015

­

Defendant Home Warranty Insurer Need Not Pay Claim Before Issuing Third Party Notice Against Those Responsible for Damage – ILSTV.com

A recent BC Supreme Court decision in The Owners, Strata Plan 4249 v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada confirms that an insurer defending itself in a first party policy lawsuit is entitled to issue third party notices for subrogation against those responsible for the loss.

The Action

The action involved a claim by the Owners of units within a building called the “Beasley” for alleged defects in materials and installation of the Beasley’s fire suppression system. A leak in the sprinkler lines of the fire suppression system caused extensive damage to a number of units in the Beasley and some of its common areas.

Travelers provided the statutory home warranty insurance policy for the Beasley. The warranty provided that if Travelers made a payment under it, Travelers was subrogated to all rights of recovery of an insured owner against any entity who may have caused or contributed to the loss paid for under the warranty.

After the leak, the Owners claimed under the warranty, claiming that there were defects in the sprinkler system. Travelers denied coverage on the basis that:

  • the claim was made outside the coverage of the warranty coverage period; and
  • the work and materials were not negligently installed or did not fail to meet the requirements of theBuilding Code such that the losses were not caused by a “defect” as defined in the warranty.

The Owners filed a Notice of Civil Claim against Travelers, alleging that Travelers breached the warranty terms by failing to remediate the deficiencies in the sprinkler system (the “Warranty Action”).

The Owners also started a separate claim in negligence against a number of parties involved in the design and installation (the “Negligence Action”).

The Application

Travelers brought an Application in the Warranty Action seeking leave to file a Third Party Notice against 13 different parties including companies and professional engineers. Several of the proposed third parties were named defendants in the Negligence Action. There was no contractual relationship between Travelers and any of the proposed third parties; the legal basis for the third party claims was through subrogation.

Two of the proposed third parties, Ironstone Engineering and its principal Gerard Elston Johnston (collectively “Ironstone”), objected to being added. Mr. Johnston was the Sprinkler Design Engineer of record for the Beasley and the principle of Ironstone Engineering. Ironstone provided consultant services for the Beasley developers and was responsible for field reviews of the installation and inspection of the Sprinkler System. Ironstone was not a named defendant in the Negligence Action.

Among other grounds, Ironstone opposed the Application on the basis that the subrogated claim had not crystalized because Travelers had not paid out under the warranty.

The Law

The Application was brought pursuant to Rule 3-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules which governs third party claims. Master MacNaughton noted that Rule 3-5 is more restrictive than the former Rule 22(3) and forces a defendant to give early consideration to the question of adding any additional parties.

On an application for leave to issue a third party notice the court must be satisfied that it is just and convenient that the proposed third party be added. Determining this requires a balancing of the prejudice from allowing the applicant to proceed by way of third party pleadings or from requiring it to pursue its claim in a separate proceeding. The court will consider:

  • the merits of the proposed claim;
  • the prejudice to the parties;
  • the expiration of a limitation period;
  • any delay in the proceedings; and
  • the timeliness of the application.

The Decision

The court noted that there was no limitation period issue and accepted that there was potential merit to the claim against Ironstone.

Master MacNaughton held that many of the issues between the Owners and Travelers related to the issues in Travelers’ claim against Ironstone. Thus, the court was satisfied that Travelers had established that there is a question or issue between it and Ironstone which was related to, or was connected with, relief claimed in the Warranty Action and should properly be determined within one action.

Ironstone was unable to point to any prejudice it would suffer by being added to the Warranty Action other than having to participate in a trial having some issues in which it had no interest. The court held that prejudice was outweighed by the potential for inconsistent finding if Ironstone was not added to the Warranty Action and two actions became necessary.

In addition, Master MacNaughton rejected the notion that in all cases a subrogated claim is barred until an insurer has paid under its policy.

The court found that, historically, the case law was unclear as to whether or not an insurer must pay out under its policy before it could bring a subrogated claim. However, most modern Canadian rules of civil procedure, and resulting cases, suggest that payment under a policy is not necessary before the subrogated third party proceeding may be brought.

In conclusion, the court held that it was just and convenient to add Ironstone as a third party.

The Impact

In this particular matter there was no issue with the limitation period; however, it is important to note that section 16 of the Limitation Act provides that:

16 A claim for contribution or indemnity is discovered on the later of the following;

  1. the day on which the claimant for contribution or indemnity is served with a pleading in respect of a claim on which the claim for contribution or indemnity is based;
  2. the first day on which the claimant knew or reasonably ought to have known that a claim for contribution or indemnity may be made.

This case indicates that the limitation period will not be extended until an insurer has paid out under its policy. Thus, parties should be putting their minds to potential third parties at the beginning of a matter regardless of whether or not payments have been made under the subject policy.


Cancer patient, 84, learns Grey Power Insurance will now pay for water damage

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2015

­

Anxiety turned to relief Tuesday for an 84-year-old Ontario woman whose insurance company had refused to cover flood damage to her home incurred while she was receiving chemotherapy.

Ivy Scotland said Grey Power Insurance has done a complete about-face after a senior adjuster visited her home earlier in the day.

The company said Tuesday it will cover the $11,000 claim it had previously declined to pay for the damage to Scotland’s Pembroke, Ont. home.

Grey Power originally ruled that the extensive water damage caused when a pipe burst in January could not be covered under Scotland’s long-held policy.

The company argued that Scotland had failed to put someone in place to make daily checks inside her home after the first four days of her extended absence for cancer treatment.

But the adjuster’s visit yielded a very different decision, Scotland said.

In addition to shouldering all costs and beginning repair work next week, Scotland said the company has now waived the $2,000 deductible, reimbursed her for the price of a contractor she hired in the aftermath of the flood, committed to either reupholstering or replacing certain items of furniture, and even offered to take on a minor repair that was unrelated to the original claim.

“He went to see the place and was convinced that they should do something about it. I’m happy with whatever he did,” Scotland said in a telephone interview from Ottawa. “I’m so happy. They’re going to start … right away.”

Scotland’s ordeal began last November when she was told that numerous chemotherapy treatments would be required to combat the multiple myeloma, or cancer of the plasma cells, that has now spread throughout her body.

Fearing that the 150-kilometre round trip from Pembroke would be too much in her condition, Scotland opted to follow her doctor’s advice and temporarily relocate to Ottawa during her treatment, which is still ongoing.

She enlisted a neighbour to collect mail, shovel sidewalks and attend to other routine maintenance outside the house, assuming those precautions were all she’d need.

“When I left my house everything was perfectly OK,” Scotland said. “I hadn’t the slightest idea that the weather was going to be what it was, and I never thought of getting someone to babysit the house.”

Six weeks after her treatments began, a prolonged cold snap that lasted through much of the winter caused one of Scotland’s pipes to freeze and ultimately burst.

Scotland didn’t have an opportunity to view the damage first-hand until weeks after the early January flood, by which time the furnace had been damaged beyond repair.

Shivering in the wreckage of her home, she said, was a shocking experience.

“From the top floor, the water came through down to the kitchen,” she said. “The ceiling in the kitchen collapsed, part of it, and the water got from there down to the basement.”

Scotland, who had made monthly payments to maintain a policy with Grey Power for years, approached the insurance company feeling confident that the flood damage would be covered.

Grey Power offered a preliminary damage estimate of $11,000, but informed her that she was not eligible for compensation because she had not engaged anyone to check inside the home after the first four days of her extended absence. Scotland asserts Grey Power never informed her of the terms of this clause when she acquired the policy.

Grey Power spokeswoman Stephanie Sorensen hinted at Tuesday’s developments by saying the company was willing to consider Scotland’s unusual situation and take the reason for her extended absence into account.

“Given the exceptional circumstances, we are working directly with our customer to resolve the matter as quickly as possible,” Sorensen said in an email. “We appreciate this is very important to our customer and we are committed to taking the necessary steps to repair her home.”

Scotland said Grey Power’s actions will get her one step closer to her ultimate goal of returning to her home once her cancer treatment is completed.


Insurance Myths: Earthquakes

Friday, April 17th, 2015

­

The myths surrounding earthquake disaster relief and earthquake insurance may result in reliance on government assistance, but because earthquakes are an insurable hazard, earthquake insurance is needed to mitigate the risk of financial loss. In BC, fire insurance covers fire from any cause including earthquake generated fire but insurance companies are lobbying to exclude earthquake fire from standard fire insurance.

Myth #1:

“If there is a major disaster and we lose everything…
the government will step in to bail us out!”

In the event of a catastrophe anywhere in Canada the federal government will provide financial assistance to the provincial or territorial government affected. This program is administered by Public Safety Canada.

Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA)

They look to the province or territory to spend these funds on important institutions and infrastructure and to support individuals and businesses that have suffered loss.

However, any funds disbursed by the local government will be according to the set of rules established by the province or territory, and there are exclusions.

Specifically, if an expense could be insured, repairs or relief are not eligible for reimbursement.

Myth #2:

“Well then… the province will bail us out… won’t they?”

To help those impacted by a disaster to cope with the cost of uninsurable repairs and recovery from related property damage, the province has instituted the:

British Columbia Disaster Financial Assistance Program

This program is administered by the Provincial Emergency Program. Following a disaster those affected may apply for financial assistance with losses that could not be insured.

It must be noted that earthquakes are an insurable hazard.

Homeowners and businesses are expected to insure themselves.

Earthquake Insurance Reality #1:

The insurance industry provides earthquake insurance called “Shake” coverage.

This insurance will cover damage done by the actual destructive shaking of a structure that causes a complete or partial loss of the property.

What most people do not realize is that because of modern building codes and construction techniques, most structures will survive usual earthquake events in the mid-magnitude range, but damage may still be considerable, and most of these “Shake” policies come with a usual 10% deductible.

That means on a half million dollar property, the first $50,000 will come out of our pocket.

Further, the greatest risk to property caused by an earthquake is the fires that always follow!

The “San Francisco Earthquake and Great Fire” destroyed the city in 1906. Kobe, Japan following the 1995 earthquake lost 8,000 buildings to in some cases massive fires that followed that earthquake.

There is good news for British Columbians in that “Fire Insurance”, as a matter of provincial law automatically covers “fire from any cause” including blazes that follow an earthquake.

The insurance industry has lobbied hard to have earthquake-caused-fires to be excluded from standard fire insurance, claiming that following a quake there just won’t be enough money in the pool to cover all the losses.

During the past 10 years the province has resisted attempts by the insurance industry to have changes made to this important protection for consumers.

If the insurance companies are this concerned about the risks of earthquake fires here, shouldn’t we be just as concerned?


Cyclists are NOT Second Class Road Users

Thursday, April 16th, 2015

­

Cyclists are NOT Second Class Road Users – ILSTV.com

By Cst. Tim Schewe (Ret.) of DriveSmartBC.ca

I read a story in the Victoria Times Colonist  regarding crashes involving motor vehicles and cyclists using the Galloping Goose trail. The article was prompted by a cyclist who had ridden across Ardersier Road and was struck by a driver who had stopped for the stop sign and then failed to yield to the cyclist. There is a crosswalk painted across the Ardersier where the trail crosses.

The Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) says it all in one statement: “…a person operating a cycle on a highway has the same rights and duties as a driver of a vehicle.” Strictly speaking, both Ardersier Road and the Galloping Goose Trail are highways within the meaning of the MVA. This effectively means that the cyclist on the Trail had every reason to expect the driver to remain stopped as they crossed with caution, in the same way that they would at the intersection of two “regular” streets having a two way stop.

The conversation posted by readers at the end of the article is illustrative of the confusion many people have with the basic rules of the road. Chief among them at the time I read it was that the cyclist should have dismounted and walked across the crosswalk. This is only the case where a bylaw does not permit a cyclist to ride in a crosswalk and the City of Victoria has done this in the Streets and Traffic Bylaw.

To give the driver the benefit of a doubt, this may simply have been a mistake of either not seeing the cyclist and making the connection that the driver had to wait until the cyclist had crossed safely in front of them, just like a two vehicle collision in a “regular” two way stop intersection. However, it is possible that the driver felt entitled because they considered that the cyclist was a second class road user and had to yield to motor vehicles. If that is the case, the driver needs to re-evaluate their perception of sharing the road with cyclists.


Merging speed onto BC’s highways

Wednesday, April 15th, 2015

Constable Tim Schewe, retired RCMP officer, answers your driving questions at www.drivesmart.ca

If there is no posted speed limit sign, what is the legal speed for merging onto a freeway?

If you think about it, any driver merging onto a highway in BC is in the same quandary.  That black and white sign you can see on the right side of the ramp only indicates that your vehicle must be capable of at least 60 km/h in order to use the freeway, but the actual posted speed limit is not going to be visible until after you have completed your merge and proceeded (not in every case) two or three hundred metres further down the freeway.

So the default speed limit, per Section 146 (1) is 80 km/h.  So this will be your target speed for successful and legal entry, doing your best not to exceed it of course.  I always recommend that drivers in this situation get their left signal going early rather than late, in order to maximize the message to the traffic on the freeway that you’re arriving and merging.  And it’s worth keeping in mind that the freeway drivers will probably respond to the way a merging vehicle is being driven; if the driver is slow, tentative, using the brakes unnecessarily, then he/she is not likely to have a successful merge (interesting statistic, 90% of merging collisions in North Vancouver are rear-enders on the ramp and don’t involve the vehicles already on the freeway).  But if a driver is brisk and confident in their approach, they are much more likely to be assimilated into the traffic flow; and that ability to merge smoothly is paramount in the mind of the Driver Examiner who is more likely to be paying attention to the traffic situation around you than your speedometer reading.


Merging speed onto BC’s highways

Wednesday, April 15th, 2015

­

Merging speed onto BC’s highways – ILSTV.com

Constable Tim Schewe, retired RCMP officer, answers your driving questions at www.drivesmart.ca

If there is no posted speed limit sign, what is the legal speed for merging onto a freeway?

If you think about it, any driver merging onto a highway in BC is in the same quandary.  That black and white sign you can see on the right side of the ramp only indicates that your vehicle must be capable of at least 60 km/h in order to use the freeway, but the actual posted speed limit is not going to be visible until after you have completed your merge and proceeded (not in every case) two or three hundred metres further down the freeway.

So the default speed limit, per Section 146 (1) is 80 km/h.  So this will be your target speed for successful and legal entry, doing your best not to exceed it of course.  I always recommend that drivers in this situation get their left signal going early rather than late, in order to maximize the message to the traffic on the freeway that you’re arriving and merging.  And it’s worth keeping in mind that the freeway drivers will probably respond to the way a merging vehicle is being driven; if the driver is slow, tentative, using the brakes unnecessarily, then he/she is not likely to have a successful merge (interesting statistic, 90% of merging collisions in North Vancouver are rear-enders on the ramp and don’t involve the vehicles already on the freeway).  But if a driver is brisk and confident in their approach, they are much more likely to be assimilated into the traffic flow; and that ability to merge smoothly is paramount in the mind of the Driver Examiner who is more likely to be paying attention to the traffic situation around you than your speedometer reading.


10 most expensive 2015 model year cars to insure

Wednesday, April 15th, 2015

­

10 most expensive 2015 model year cars to insure – ILSTV.com

Not surprisingly, model year 2015 sports cars and convertibles that sell for more than $100,000 and can reach speeds of up to 200 mph are the most expensive cars to insure, according to a new study from Insure.com.

These vehicles are very powerful and very expensive to repair and replace. They often combine parts made of carbon fiber and other exotic materials with expensive engines that can crank out 500 horsepower or more, says Insure.com. Cars like these typically appeal more to men, who usually face higher premiums.

Insure.com commissioned Quadrant Information Services to calculate average auto insurance rates for 2015 models by examining insurance rates from Allstate, Farmers, GEICO, Nationwide, Progressive, and State Farm for more than 1,500 vehicle models in every state. The rates were based on full coverage for a singe 40-year-old male with a clean record and good credit who commutes 12 miles to work every day, with policy limits of $100,000 for injury liability for one person, $300,000 for all injuries, and $50,000 for property damage in an accident, as well as a $500 deductible on collision and comprehensive coverage. Most expensive rankings were determined by the worst-performing trim line of each model.

Insure.com notes that though relative rankings should remain the same, the underlying cost of car insurance varies wildly by state.

10. Mercedes-Benz CLS63 AMG 4Matic Sedan: Average national premium: $2,972

9. Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG 4Matic Wagon: Average national premium: $3,042

8. BMW M6 Convertible: Average national premium: $3,115

7. BMW 760Li: Average national premium: $3,147

6. Porsche Panamera Turbo Executive: Average national premium: $3,174

5. Audi R8 5.2 Spyder Quattro: Average national premium: $3,206

4. Porsche 911 Carrera S Cabriolet: Average national premium: $3,216

3. Dodge SRT Viper: Average national premium: $3,318

2. Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG Convertible: Average national premium: $3,573

1. Nissan GT-R Nismo: Average national premium: $3,574

Insure.com found that 2015’s most-expensive model to insure is the Nissan GT-R Nismo, a premium version of the brand’s flagship sports car. At an average of $3,574 per year, that’s more than twice the $1,555 average for the 1,500-plus models that Insure.com studied.

The GT-R Nismo starts at $149,900 and features a racing-inspired design, a 600-horsepower twin-turbo V-6 engine, nitrogen-filled tires and other high-performance features that help propel the model to a 196 mph top speed—and top insurance premiums.


Ontario drivers have overpaid billions for auto insurance: study

Tuesday, April 14th, 2015

Ontario drivers may have overpaid billions of dollars in insurance because a profit benchmark for the industry is set way too high by Ontario’s regulator, a new study has found.

Consumers likely overpaid by $3 to $4 billion between 2001 and 2013 _ $840 million in 2013 alone _ according to the Schulich School of Business study commissioned by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.

The study pointed to the profit benchmark set by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario at 11 per cent return on equity as being too high.

“Consequently, premiums have been too high, and consumers in Ontario have been paying too much for auto insurance,” the study authors wrote.

“There is significant room to reduce rates. The combination of a return on equity cap of 5.8 per cent, the 10-year rolling average for 2013, and a lower operating cost assumption could reduce auto insurance premiums by at least 7.9 per cent based on 2013 data.”

The cap should be no more than about 5.5 per cent, given low interest rates, the study authors concluded.

The Ontario trial lawyers called on the government to reduce the profit cap and to have the auditor general investigate auto insurance in Ontario.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada responded by calling on personal injury lawyers to reduce the amount they take from accident victims.

“In 2013, lawyers received an estimated $500 million from injury claimants out of their insurance settlements for bodily injury claims,” the IBC said in a release.

“Perhaps it is time that lawyers also reduce their fees to further reduce costs to consumers,” said Ralph Palumbo, the IBC’s Ontario vice-president. “Personal injury lawyers and their sky-high fees are putting justice out of reach for too many Ontarians.”

The IBC also noted that the study clearly states that the return for the industry was -1.1 per cent in 2001-2011, 4.2 per cent in 2012 and 2.4 per cent in 2013.

The Liberal government has promised to cut auto insurance rates by an average of 15 per cent from where they were in the summer of 2013 by this August.

A spokeswoman for Finance Minister Charles Sousa said that auto insurance rates have declined by more than six per cent on average since August 2013, but his press secretary said they “look forward to reviewing the report.”

“Our government is always looking for ways to continue to reduce rates and fight fraud in the auto insurance system,” Kelsey Ingram wrote in a statement. But she said reviewing private companies would not be within the auditor general’s mandate.

Ontario’s opposition parties are skeptical that drivers will see that 15-per-cent cut by this summer.

“The target is only a couple of months away…so they are poised to fail miserably,” said Progressive Conservative critic Vic Fedeli.

NDP critic Jagmeet Singh said changes in 2010 to the regulatory system resulted in cost savings for the insurance companies. This study bolsters his belief that the insurance industry is making a “significant profit,” he said.

“There is absolutely enough profit in the system as it stands for the government to make that reduction with the existing savings that the insurance industry is already enjoying,” Singh said.