SGI stated in the claimant's injury notes ... "All in all I did not okay any homecare ... Also the fact that she has not received homecare in the past, I did not want to open a can of worms. I’ll leave this to you Darlene to look after.”
In the AIAC decision it stated, "For more than 13 years, the Appellant’s requests for home assistance were largely ignored or denied without written reasons... While we have the benefit of hind-sight, we are unable to reconcile SGIs obligation to act with utmost good faith and duty to inform, assist and ensure the appellant received all of the benefits which she was entitled to with what appears to be a complete failure respecting her need for personal and living assistance despite her requests and documented need. This was not an example of SGI's 'finest hour'
Did you know that when SGI increased their rates in 2009, there were 2 people going to court for not receiving their benefits?!?
Are there possibly more claimants who have not get their benefits? (Since writing up this website, I have found at least 3 or 4 claimants not getting their benefits.) What about the adjusters who did not give out the benefits to these 2 claimants going to court -- did these same adjusters do this to the rest of the claims they handle? If there was a lawyer organized enough, could there be a group lawsuit against SGI for claimants not getting their benefits in a timely matter? An argument could be possibly be made for this.
THIS would be a reason WHY costs are increasing for SGI.
Claimants are not getting their benefits in a timely fashion so they have to rely on insurance for a longer period of time.
There was a review done on the No-Fault System in 2015 but there was no review done to see if there were more claimants who did not get their benefits or what happened in these cases and if an improvement could be made in the disagreement process?
Are you going to get your benefits if you have to deal with SGI as an auto insurance?
Maybe? Maybe not?
What's the point of raising the rates when you are not guaranteed benefits anyway?
If SGI or the Government of Saskatchewan suggest any rate hikes, look at these numbers ...
SGI made:
Please understand that the Government of Saskatchewan are the shareholders of SGI. Besides taxes from SGI, this is where the Government of Saskatchewan get funds to pay for infrastructure such as roads and services. When SGI makes excess profit, the shareholders (Gov of SK) sometimes get rewarded with excess funds called dividends. (SGI paid the shareholders a few years back; I believe in 2015) Plus, SGI as a corporation has to pay taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan. But despite that, every expense should all be accounted for in the accounting books if they are following GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) including anything added or withdrawn from the Auto Fund. The total amount of profits would be $572.4 million in the last 12 years.
This is part of the reason Saskatchewan went to a monopoly years ago ... other insurance company's in other provinces were getting profitable off the backs of Saskatchewan's citizens. Therefore, by creating an insurance company in Saskatchewan it allowed an increase in jobs (through SGI) and elsewhere in the province's economy plus an increase in taxes and added funds to the government through dividends. This helps pay for Saskatchewan's infrastructure.
So SGI is not necessarily a bad thing in Saskatchewan, because there are added benefits to having Saskatchewan's "own" insurance company. However, the ethics have to be closely watched.
(You could also have multiple private insurance companies in Saskatchewan as well as having SGI which would equal the same benefit as just having a monopoly, through added jobs and taxes. There have been some court cases (I believe), where companies that operate in another area, have to pay taxes in that area they are getting revenue; whereas years ago (in the 1940s), I do not think that was the case. I am listening to a tax CD and it talks about this. So the benefit of a monopoly may not be as strong as it was years ago.) Plus if there was competition in Saskatchewan, it would help give SGI give out benefits in a more timely matter. And I believe a free market does grow an economy faster. Alberta did not go to an auto insurance monopoly in the 1940s. (It is actually interesting to look at the businesses that have been created in Alberta due to the free market system including the auto insurance area within Alberta)
There were 2 people going to court for not getting their benefits in 2009 when SGI raised rates (Both parties were just waiting for the court decisions to come back which is why SGI/politicians raised rates during those months because, I believe that the politicians may have had a harder time doing that after the decisions were in) I do not care how small the increase or that there has not been an increase for years. If there is a monopoly not giving out benefits in a timely matter, going to court for non-compliance of the law, they should not be allowed to raise rates. This allows for compliance from the government allowing a monopoly not do the job they were intended to do yet saying to the public, we need to increase rates to ensure that the basic benefits are given.
Why?!?
SGI is not giving out the benefits to everyone anyway.
Besides, a case could be made that the rate increase in 2009 was under a false pretense, since the government and SGI made no mention of these extreme cases that went to court. If the government and SGI does it once, they could do it again when raising prices. An argument could be made to re-appeal the price increase because it was under a false pretense and I think it should, just for principle sake. Refunds could be given back to the public.
Do not be fooled ... the politicians knew.
I also have seen a few inconsistencies with some of their accounting statements regarding their subsidiary, Coachman. But I don't have time to review that right now or to get into that specifically. But it is definitely something worth checking out.
In addition, many years ago, SGI started to expand their insurance business outside of Saskatchewan borders by offering insurance in other provinces. By doing this, they can spread out their risk but also profit with other insurance policies outside of Saskatchewan. Any profits made off of those policies outside the province add to SGIs profit thereby help to lower the cost of auto insurance inside of Saskatchewan and if enough money is made, be withdrawn from the shareholders (Gov't of Sk) to help pay for Saskatchewan's infrastructure.
Based on this information as well as the fact MULTIPLE claimants have not gotten their benefits, rates possibly should not have been increased. Why are they raising rates when you may not get your benefits anyway if you have a claim?
What are SGI and the politicians doing?!? Demand answers.
The public has the power to do that.
Please click on the page "Lawyers, Judges & Inflation" to find out what the judges & lawyers are not understanding ....
Are there possibly more claimants who have not get their benefits? (Since writing up this website, I have found at least 3 or 4 claimants not getting their benefits.) What about the adjusters who did not give out the benefits to these 2 claimants going to court -- did these same adjusters do this to the rest of the claims they handle? If there was a lawyer organized enough, could there be a group lawsuit against SGI for claimants not getting their benefits in a timely matter? An argument could be possibly be made for this.
THIS would be a reason WHY costs are increasing for SGI.
Claimants are not getting their benefits in a timely fashion so they have to rely on insurance for a longer period of time.
There was a review done on the No-Fault System in 2015 but there was no review done to see if there were more claimants who did not get their benefits or what happened in these cases and if an improvement could be made in the disagreement process?
Are you going to get your benefits if you have to deal with SGI as an auto insurance?
Maybe? Maybe not?
What's the point of raising the rates when you are not guaranteed benefits anyway?
If SGI or the Government of Saskatchewan suggest any rate hikes, look at these numbers ...
SGI made:
- $21.2 million net profit in 2003
- $42 million net income in 2004
- $35 million consolidated profit in 2005
- $52 million profit in 2006
- $35.1 million profit in 2007
- $40.4 million profit in 2008
- $52.4 million profit in 2009
- $47.4 million consolidate profit in 2010
- $441,000 consolidate profit in 2011
- $82.1 million consolidated net profit in 2012
- $39.2 million consolidated profit in 2013
- $40.7 million consolidated profit in 2014
- $84.5 million profit in 2015
Please understand that the Government of Saskatchewan are the shareholders of SGI. Besides taxes from SGI, this is where the Government of Saskatchewan get funds to pay for infrastructure such as roads and services. When SGI makes excess profit, the shareholders (Gov of SK) sometimes get rewarded with excess funds called dividends. (SGI paid the shareholders a few years back; I believe in 2015) Plus, SGI as a corporation has to pay taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan. But despite that, every expense should all be accounted for in the accounting books if they are following GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) including anything added or withdrawn from the Auto Fund. The total amount of profits would be $572.4 million in the last 12 years.
This is part of the reason Saskatchewan went to a monopoly years ago ... other insurance company's in other provinces were getting profitable off the backs of Saskatchewan's citizens. Therefore, by creating an insurance company in Saskatchewan it allowed an increase in jobs (through SGI) and elsewhere in the province's economy plus an increase in taxes and added funds to the government through dividends. This helps pay for Saskatchewan's infrastructure.
So SGI is not necessarily a bad thing in Saskatchewan, because there are added benefits to having Saskatchewan's "own" insurance company. However, the ethics have to be closely watched.
(You could also have multiple private insurance companies in Saskatchewan as well as having SGI which would equal the same benefit as just having a monopoly, through added jobs and taxes. There have been some court cases (I believe), where companies that operate in another area, have to pay taxes in that area they are getting revenue; whereas years ago (in the 1940s), I do not think that was the case. I am listening to a tax CD and it talks about this. So the benefit of a monopoly may not be as strong as it was years ago.) Plus if there was competition in Saskatchewan, it would help give SGI give out benefits in a more timely matter. And I believe a free market does grow an economy faster. Alberta did not go to an auto insurance monopoly in the 1940s. (It is actually interesting to look at the businesses that have been created in Alberta due to the free market system including the auto insurance area within Alberta)
There were 2 people going to court for not getting their benefits in 2009 when SGI raised rates (Both parties were just waiting for the court decisions to come back which is why SGI/politicians raised rates during those months because, I believe that the politicians may have had a harder time doing that after the decisions were in) I do not care how small the increase or that there has not been an increase for years. If there is a monopoly not giving out benefits in a timely matter, going to court for non-compliance of the law, they should not be allowed to raise rates. This allows for compliance from the government allowing a monopoly not do the job they were intended to do yet saying to the public, we need to increase rates to ensure that the basic benefits are given.
Why?!?
SGI is not giving out the benefits to everyone anyway.
Besides, a case could be made that the rate increase in 2009 was under a false pretense, since the government and SGI made no mention of these extreme cases that went to court. If the government and SGI does it once, they could do it again when raising prices. An argument could be made to re-appeal the price increase because it was under a false pretense and I think it should, just for principle sake. Refunds could be given back to the public.
Do not be fooled ... the politicians knew.
I also have seen a few inconsistencies with some of their accounting statements regarding their subsidiary, Coachman. But I don't have time to review that right now or to get into that specifically. But it is definitely something worth checking out.
In addition, many years ago, SGI started to expand their insurance business outside of Saskatchewan borders by offering insurance in other provinces. By doing this, they can spread out their risk but also profit with other insurance policies outside of Saskatchewan. Any profits made off of those policies outside the province add to SGIs profit thereby help to lower the cost of auto insurance inside of Saskatchewan and if enough money is made, be withdrawn from the shareholders (Gov't of Sk) to help pay for Saskatchewan's infrastructure.
Based on this information as well as the fact MULTIPLE claimants have not gotten their benefits, rates possibly should not have been increased. Why are they raising rates when you may not get your benefits anyway if you have a claim?
What are SGI and the politicians doing?!? Demand answers.
The public has the power to do that.
Please click on the page "Lawyers, Judges & Inflation" to find out what the judges & lawyers are not understanding ....
Please note ....
1,2. I got the information about the history of the No-Fault system for this website from the legal document, 'Cash and Crash' written by Kenneth Noble and Reginald Watson. I try my best to put this problem into my own words based on my experience. But when I did quote them verbatim, I gave credit to the article. Most of the information in this website is BASED on my own experience while using their document to confirm my information. Quoting them when I could.
I do not have copyright over the information on this website. But I will maintain copyright over my story. (which probably means nothing by just saying it) Please copy as much as you want and create a new website with this information.
I also talk about penalizing SGI monetarily if they do something wrong and using the money for a judge. I actually thought of a better way to use that money but can not remember at this time. Sorry
I will be attaching all the evidence that I talk about on this website, including emails, changes of adjusters and voice messages. But it will take some time to do this.
If the system is not dramatically changed, you may want to get rid of the AIAC in Saskatchewan.
My latin is not so good. So I mixed up the words Ex Gratia and Ex Parte on this website and ebook. It will take me a while of rechecking it to fix it.
And my grammar, punctuation, and editing are terrible as I am in a time crunch so please do not be too judgemental. I have a lot of dangling and squinting modifiers and split sentences. Use this as information for a claim not as a chance to critique someone’s writing.
Please read Cash and Crash by Kenneth Noble and Reginald Watson. I think you can get it from the Law Society of Saskatchewan Library. This will help you understand the system surrounding Auto Claims in Saskatchewan. I would like to see them on the Gormley Show.
If I forgot to mention Reginald Watson as one of the writers as Cash and Crash, I am sorry. I initially thought it was only written by one lawyer.