Success stories

Not every case involves a complex dispute. Sometimes, consumers simply need help getting a response.One consumer contacted us after repeated attempts to obtain a letter of experience from both the insurer and the insurance broker. Despite multiple requests, the document never arrived.A single email from our office was all it took.Within days, the insurer provided the letter of experience directly to us, bringing the matter to a swift resolution.

A consumer purchased a vehicle but had not yet obtained insurance. After being towed to a repair shop for roadworthiness repairs, the vehicle was struck while parked on the shop’s lot.When the consumer contacted the at-fault driver’s insurer, he was told they would not consider the claim unless he first took legal action against their insured. This approach was unreasonable, created unnecessary hardship for both the consumer and their own insured, and appeared inconsistent with normal industry practices.Following our intervention, the insurer agreed to deal directly with the consumer, avoiding costly and unnecessary legal proceedings and allowing the claim to be resolved fairly and efficiently.

After an accident, a consumer was told her vehicle was a total loss. The insurer made a written settlement offer, which the consumer accepted in writing. The claim appeared settled.Then, unexpectedly, the insurer withdrew its offer and announced it would repair the vehicle instead.Frustrated by the sudden reversal, the consumer challenged the decision. The insurer then changed course again, proposing a different settlement amount. Confused and concerned by the inconsistent claims handling, the consumer contacted our office.After reviewing the written correspondence and accepted settlement offer, we reached out to the insurer. Following our intervention, the insurer honored the original agreement and paid the settlement as promised.When something doesn't seem right, trust your instincts and contact our office. We're here to help.

When communication breaks down, consumers can be left in a difficult position. A consumer recently contacted our office after being told they might have to cover a repair invoice because payment from their insurer had not been received. Despite repeated inquiries from both the consumer and the repair shop, the insurer was unresponsive, making it difficult to determine the cause of the delay. After investigating the matter, we discovered that the insurer had mistakenly sent the payment to the wrong repair shop. Once notified of the error, the insurer promptly corrected the issue. 

The consumer attempted to cancel her policy both by telephone and in person; however, despite her requests, the policy remained in force. Subsequent efforts to resolve the issue were unsuccessful. After more than a month of attempting to have the policy cancelled, she contacted our office for assistance. We then reached out to the insurer, advised them of the circumstances, and they promptly processed the cancellation request.

Our office was contacted by an insured who had filed a claim for a stolen vehicle that was later recovered. The vehicle had been missing for an extended period and sustained damage while in the possession of the thief. Following a review of the reported damages, the insurer determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that all the claimed damage resulted from the theft. As a result, only a portion of the repairs was approved for coverage.Dissatisfied with this outcome, the consumer contacted our office for assistance. We reached out to the insurer to explore whether the benefit of the doubt could be extended in this case, particularly since some of the denied damages were near other damaged body panels that had been accepted as part of the claim. Following a second review of the file, the insurer agreed, as a gesture of good faith, to expand the scope of repairs to include the previously denied damages.

A consumer was rear-ended while transporting an expensive bicycle on a vehicle-mounted bike rack. A claim was submitted, and the insurer promptly addressed the damage to the vehicle without issue. However, both the bicycle and the bike rack sustained significant damage in the collision.New Brunswick operates under a direct compensation program, whereby insurers are responsible for handling their own insured losses, regardless of fault, provided the appropriate coverages are in place. At fault losses are processed under the collision coverage and the not at fault claims are handled under Direct Compensation Property Damage (DCPD). As a result, insured individuals have no legal recourse against an at-fault third party for damage to their vehicle or to property being transported by that vehicle.In this case, the insurer declined coverage for the damaged bicycle and rack, advising the consumer to submit a claim under his homeowner’s insurance policy instead. The consumer considered this approach unfair, as it would require him to file claims under two separate insurance policies arising from the same incident.His concerns were justified. After the consumer contacted our office, we contacted the insurer and raised the issue. Upon review, the insurer promptly acknowledged the error, reversed its position, and agreed to indemnify the consumer for the damage to the bicycle and bike rack under the Direct Compensation Property Damage (DCPD) provisions of his automobile insurance policy.

A consumer contacted our office seeking assistance regarding issues with his car loan insurance claim. He explained that benefit payments were frequently issued late, often arriving after his loan payment due date, which caused him significant concern and financial stress. The consumer also advised that the payments had unexpectedly stopped approximately three months earlier without any explanation from the insurer.Despite making several attempts to have the payments reinstated, the consumer encountered ongoing delays. He reported that the insurer repeatedly requested the same information and supporting documentation, even though those documents had already been submitted on multiple occasions. As a result, the matter remained unresolved, and no payments were issued during that period.Our office contacted the insurer and requested a comprehensive review of the claim and payment status. Following our intervention, the insurer promptly reviewed the file and acknowledged that all required information had already been received and that no additional documentation was necessary. The insurer subsequently reinstated the claim benefits, issued the overdue payments, and offered to process the remaining benefit payments in advance to help prevent any further delays and ensure the consumer's loan obligations could be met on time.

Following significant water damage to their residence, a consumer was forced to temporarily relocate while repairs were completed. During the claims process, a miscommunication between the insurer and its preferred contractor regarding the scope of the restoration work resulted in the consumer being denied coverage for substitute accommodation expenses. The insurer took the position that the home remained sufficiently habitable and that additional living expenses were not warranted.The consumer subsequently raised concerns and provided documentation demonstrating that the affected area of the residence could not reasonably be occupied while repairs were underway. After reviewing the evidence submitted by the consumer and engaging with the insurer to clarify the circumstances surrounding the claim, it was determined that the information initially relied upon by the insurer was incomplete. As a result, the insurer acknowledged that the consumer should have been eligible for additional living expenses for the period during which the restoration work rendered that portion of the residence uninhabitable. The claim was reassessed, and the insurer agreed to provide coverage for the substitute accommodation expenses for the duration of the repairs.

The consumer’s vehicle was deemed a total loss following an accident. She was understandably concerned about how her insurer would assess and settle the claim. Given the circumstances, we encouraged her to research comparable vehicles in her local market. This served two important purposes. First, it helped her develop a realistic understanding of her vehicle’s current market value, enabling her to confidently discuss and negotiate the settlement if necessary. Second, and most importantly in this case, it provided reassurance that the insurer’s offer was fair when it was presented.The consumer was pleased with the outcome. The settlement offer exceeded her expectations, providing a measure of satisfaction and peace of mind during what had otherwise been a challenging situation.

While shopping for insurance, the consumer was advised that an insurance experience letter from their previous insurer was required. An insurance experience letter is a document issued by an insurance company that summarizes a client's insurance history, including coverage details and claims experience. This document is often used by prospective insurers when assessing risk and determining eligibility or premium rates.The consumer contacted their previous insurer to obtain the experience letter; however, the insurer repeatedly refused to provide the document. As a result, the consumer was unable to proceed with securing new insurance coverage.Following our intervention, we contacted the insurer and addressed the consumer's concerns. As a result of our efforts, the insurer provided the requested insurance experience letter, enabling the consumer to continue the insurance application process.

An insured was advised by a broker that automobile insurance coverage would cost approximately $100 per month. Relying on this quotation, he accepted the proposal and cancelled his existing insurance coverage.Shortly thereafter, he was informed that the insurer would not cover him.  The client had to look for coverage through the Facility Association at a premium nearly four times higher than the amount originally quoted by the broker.The insured subsequently contacted our office. We reached out to the insurer, which advised us that it had no record of the client ever having been insured with the company. As a result, no formal cancellation notice had been sent to the client, since the insurer's records did not reflect an active policy in his name.We then provided the insurer with a copy of the pink card that had been issued to the client, confirming one year of insurance coverage. Following its review of this information, the insurer acknowledged the coverage and agreed to honor the insurance arrangement initially offered to the client through the broker, thereby maintaining the coverage on the terms originally quoted.

An insured contacted our office to inquire why his insurance company had increased his premiums by a substantial 10% and 17% in two consecutive years, despite having no accidents or driving convictions during that period.We reviewed the rate increases approved by the Insurance Board and determined that the premium adjustments appeared to fall within the insurer's authorized rating parameters.Although the client was initially reluctant to switch insurance providers, we suggested that he compare rates in the marketplace. After shopping around, he found another insurer willing to provide equivalent coverage at a premium that was approximately $700 less per year. As a result, he ultimately decided to move his policy to the new insurer.

The insured's insurance claim's history indicated two at-fault accident-recorded one day apart, which resulted in a significant increase in premium rates when they sought auto insurance coverage. We assisted the consumer by contacting the insurer and requesting a review of the claim’s history to determine whether any errors had occurred. Following its investigation, the insurer confirmed that the second accident entry was a duplicate record of the same claim. The insurer subsequently corrected the error and issued the consumer an experience letter confirming that only one at-fault accident appears on their record.

An insured was initially deemed at fault by his insurer after being placed in an unavoidable emergency situation caused by an oncoming motorist. Although no physical contact occurred between the vehicles, he was forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision, resulting in his vehicle leaving the roadway and striking an electrical pole. We successfully challenged the insurer’s liability determination, leading to a reversal of fault and reimbursement of the consumer’s deductible.

The client was initially advised by the insurer that he was not at fault for the accident. However, the insurer subsequently reversed its decision and determined that the insured was at fault. As a result of this change in position, the insurer refused to cover the costs associated with the rental vehicle invoice.The client then contacted our office seeking assistance. We intervened by contacting the insurer and requesting that the file be reviewed once again. Following a reassessment of the circumstances surrounding the claim, the insurer concluded that its original determination had been correct and that the client was, in fact, not at fault for the accident.Based on this revised review, the insurer reinstated its initial position, accepted liability for the rental vehicle expenses, and agreed to cover the outstanding rental invoice.

The client contacted our office seeking assistance with an insurance claim involving her vehicle. She wished to retain her car despite the fact that the estimated repair costs exceeded the vehicle's value, which led the insurer to classify it as a total loss. We contacted the insurance company on the client's behalf to discuss her concerns and explore possible options. Following our intervention, the insurer agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to allow the client to keep her vehicle rather than proceed with the total loss settlement in the usual manner. The client was pleased with the outcome and appreciative of the assistance provided.

A client’s insurance policy was cancelled for non-payment, a situation that can have serious and long-lasting consequences on an individual’s insurance record and future ability to obtain coverage at reasonable rates. Upon becoming aware of the cancellation, the client immediately contacted his insurance broker and made every effort to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, despite his prompt actions, the matter was not resolved. The client advised that he had not received any notice of the missed payment, nor had he received a registered letter notifying him of the impending cancellation.Following our intervention, we engaged with the insurer to review the circumstances surrounding the cancellation. After considering the facts, the insurance company agreed that the matter resulted from a misunderstanding and acknowledged the client’s efforts to address the issue as soon as he became aware of it. As a result, the insurer reinstated the policy without interruption and removed the missed payment and cancellation from the client’s record. This outcome prevented the client from experiencing the significant negative consequences that can arise from a cancellation for non-payment and restored his insurance standing.

The insurer initially determined that the consumer was 50% responsible for a collision at a four-way stop. In support of its position, the insurer indicated that there were two conflicting versions of the accident and no available camera footage or independent evidence to establish fault conclusively.After reviewing the circumstances of the loss, including the RCMP report containing both drivers’ statements and the location and nature of the damage sustained by each vehicle, we identified concerns regarding the insurer’s liability assessment. In particular, the physical damage appeared to be more consistent with the insured’s version of events than with the version relied upon by the insurer.We subsequently contacted the insurer and requested a further review of the file, highlighting the available evidence and the apparent inconsistency between the damage patterns and the insurer’s fault determination. Following a reassessment of the claim, the insurer agreed that there was sufficient evidence to support its insured’s account of the accident and concluded that its original liability assessment should be revised.As a result, the insurer overturned its previous decision, found its insured to be 0% at fault for the accident, and amended the claim file accordingly.

An insurer was applying a deductible to damages arising from a motor vehicle accident for which the insured was not at fault and which should have been covered under Direct Compensation Property Damage (DCPD) provisions. Despite numerous attempts by both the client and the repair facility to resolve the issue directly with the adjuster, the matter remained unresolved.Within 24 hours of the client contacting our office, we intervened and communicated directly with the insurer. Following our involvement, the insurer promptly confirmed to the repair facility that the deductible would be waived, as required under the circumstances, and authorized the commencement of repairs. Our timely intervention eliminated an unnecessary financial burden on the client and prevented further delays in returning their vehicle to service.

The consumer did not agree with the total loss automobile valuation, arguing that it failed to adequately account for the vehicle's exceptionally low mileage. Upon reviewing the evaluation, we confirmed that no adjustment had been made to reflect the vehicle's low kilometres. We subsequently contacted the insurer to raise this concern. After further review, the insurer acknowledged the oversight and agreed to reassess the valuation and make an appropriate adjustment to reflect the vehicle's low mileage, resulting in an increased settlement value.

A policyholder submitted a claim for water damage, which was initially reviewed and accepted by the insurer. Following the insurer’s approval, the parties reached an agreement regarding the scope of the loss and the amount to be paid under the policy.However, after the claim had been approved and partial payments had already been issued, the insurer reversed its position. The insurer advised that it had incorrectly interpreted the policy coverage and asserted that the claim should not have been approved in the first place. As a result, the insurer refused to issue the remaining payments that had formed part of the agreed settlement, leaving the policyholder facing significant uncertainty and financial hardship.Upon being retained, we reviewed the file, including the policy wording, the insurer’s communications, and the circumstances surrounding the original approval of the claim. We then engaged directly with the insurer and raised concerns regarding the fairness of withdrawing coverage after the claim had already been accepted and settlement terms agreed upon.Following our intervention, the matter was escalated to the insurer’s senior leadership team for further review. After reassessing the file, the insurer acknowledged the circumstances surrounding its original approval and agreed to honor the claim on the terms that had initially been accepted. As a result, the outstanding payments were issued and the claim was settled in accordance with the original agreement, bringing the matter to a satisfactory resolution for the policyholder.

An insured contacted our office regarding the disclosure of personal information by his insurer. Following a motor vehicle accident, the insurer provided the at-fault party’s insurer not only with the insured’s name, but also his home address, telephone number, and other personal details.The other party subsequently used this information to harass the policyholder, to the point that police intervention became necessary.The client questioned the extent of the information disclosed during the claims process, and we agreed that it did not appear necessary to share such a broad range of personal information for the purpose of handling the claim. Ultimately, the insurer reached a settlement with the client that was satisfactory to him.It is worth noting that if you believe your insurer has disclosed your personal information without proper authorization, beyond what is permitted by applicable privacy laws or by any consent you may have provided, you have the right to file a formal complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

A policyholder contacted our office after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. She was experiencing significant difficulty communicating with her adjuster and had been unable to obtain updates regarding the status of her claim. As a result, she was concerned that her vehicle might be deemed a total loss and felt overwhelmed and confused by the claims process.We took the time to explain the claims process in detail, including the typical steps involved in assessing vehicle damage, determining repairability, and resolving the claim. By providing clear information and answering her questions, we were able to alleviate many of her concerns and give her a better understanding of what to expect moving forward.In addition, we contacted the insurer on the policyholder’s behalf and requested that they follow up directly with their client to provide an update on the status of her claim and address her outstanding concerns. Following our intervention, communication between the insurer and the policyholder improved, and the claim was able to progress more efficiently.Our involvement made a meaningful difference by helping the policyholder better understand the process, providing reassurance during a stressful time, and facilitating communication with the insurer so that her claim could continue moving toward resolution.

A client contacted our office after being involved in a motor vehicle accident. The insurer disputed whether certain damages to the client’s vehicle were caused by the accident. After reviewing the photographs and considering the circumstances surrounding the collision, we concluded that the disputed damages appeared consistent with the accident as described by the client.We contacted the insurer and requested that an independent appraiser inspect the vehicle. Following the inspection, the appraiser reached a similar conclusion and confirmed that the damages were attributable to the accident. As a result, the insurer accepted responsibility for the full extent of the damages and agreed to provide coverage for all repairs.

After his vehicle was damaged in a motor vehicle accident and sent for repairs, the insured was provided with a rental vehicle under the loss-of-use coverage he had purchased.As the repairs took longer than anticipated, and knowing that his rental coverage was subject to a limit on the number of rental days, the insured contacted the insurance adjuster to inquire whether the insurer would continue covering the cost of the rental vehicle. He was assured not to worry and was led to believe that the rental remained fully covered.When he returned the rental vehicle, however, he was informed that he owed approximately $1,000 in rental charges.Following our intervention, the insurance company acknowledged that an error had been made on its part and agreed to pay the outstanding invoice in full.

An insurer had determined that its insured was responsible for a motor vehicle accident without notifying her of that decision.Several years later, when she decided to switch insurance providers, she was informed that the accident appeared on her driving record and that, as a result, her insurance premiums would be higher.She immediately took steps to have her record corrected, but her efforts were unsuccessful. She then turned to our office for assistance.After hearing her account and reviewing the legislation and regulations applicable to her situation, we contacted her former insurer to point out the error. Based on the Fault Determination Rules, we were convinced that she should not have been held responsible for the accident.Following several discussions and exchanges with the insurer, the company ultimately accepted our recommendation and overturned its original decision. Her record was accordingly corrected.

A consumer contacted our Office regarding delays in the repair of her motor vehicle and the insurer’s refusal to continue covering the cost of a replacement vehicle while the repairs were ongoing.The consumer’s vehicle had been stolen and used by thieves, who had also consumed drugs inside it. As a result, the vehicle required a remediation process to ensure it was free of drug contamination. Although the vehicle underwent cleaning on two occasions, it was evident that the cleaning had been inadequate. This delay ultimately caused the 30-day coverage period for a replacement vehicle, as stipulated in her policy, to expire.The insurer declined the consumer’s request to extend this coverage period.After reviewing the facts of the case, including photographs clearly demonstrating the inadequate cleaning of the vehicle, we contacted the insurer. Following a reassessment of the documentation, the insurer agreed to extend the consumer’s access to a replacement vehicle beyond the 30-day period outlined in her policy and to arrange for further cleaning of the vehicle.

The consumer’s policy was cancelled for non-payment, despite their proactive effort to arrange a payment plan with their agent a month in advance. At the time, no options or alternatives were presented to help the consumer manage or defer the upcoming payment, ultimately resulting in the cancellation of the policy.Upon review, the insurer acknowledged that accommodations could have been made to support the consumer and potentially avoid the cancellation. As a result, they agreed to remove the non-payment cancellation from the consumer’s record, allowing her to secure coverage in the standard insurance market without penalty.A cancellation for non-payment can have serious and lasting consequences for an insured individual, often leading to significantly higher premiums and reduced access to affordable coverage. In this case, correcting the record helped prevent those negative impacts and restored the consumer’s ability to obtain insurance under normal conditions.

A consumer contacted our office after their insurer assigned them 50% responsibility for an accident, despite their belief that they were not at fault. The third party involved provided a conflicting account, placing full responsibility on the consumer, which led the insurer to initially determine shared fault.After the consumer submitted photographs and additional evidence to our office, we contacted the insurer and requested a further review of the claim. Based on the information provided, we were of the opinion that the consumer was likely not at fault.Following a reassessment, the insurer agreed with this conclusion and revised their decision, ultimately assigning 0% liability to their insured. Avoiding an at-fault designation was significant, as such a finding could have led to an increase in the consumer’s insurance premiums.

An insured contacted our office regarding a motor vehicle accident involving her live-in son. While the insured was hospitalized, her son took her vehicle without her consent. While operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, he struck a telephone pole, causing damage to both the insured’s vehicle and the utility company’s equipment.The insurer denied coverage for the damage to the insured’s vehicle on the basis that the son was operating the vehicle while impaired. In addition, the insurer incorrectly applied a Section C – Collision exclusion (theft of a vehicle by a person residing in the same household) to deny coverage under Section A – Third Party Liability. As a result, the insurer took the position that the damage to the utility company’s property—estimated at approximately $6,000 to $7,000—was not covered, leaving the insured personally responsible for these costs.Given that the damage to the utility equipment clearly fell within the scope of third-party liability coverage, we disagreed with the insurer’s position. We advocated on behalf of the insured, and following a further review, the insurer ultimately reversed its position and agreed to cover the third-party damages.

A consumer contacted our Office regarding an insurer’s change of position.The client had been negotiating with the insurer concerning the compensation to which he was entitled following a motor vehicle accident. He ultimately accepted the offer made by the insurer.Subsequently, the insurer reversed its position, claiming that an error had been made and that the offer should have been for a lower amount. The client attempted to persuade the insurer to honour the original agreement, but these efforts were unsuccessful.Our Office intervened and took the position that a binding agreement had been reached between the parties and that the insurer could not unilaterally alter its terms.The insurer ultimately agreed to reinstate the originally agreed-upon amount.

A consumer contacted our Office following a disagreement with his insurer regarding the extent of the damage to his motor vehicle after an accident.Without conducting a proper appraisal, the insurer asserted that some of the damages were unrelated to the collision. It advised the client that, if he was dissatisfied with this determination, he could resort to the appraisal process available under the Insurance Act (which we have previously noted in our annual report is often used as a lever to pressure clients into abandoning legitimate claims).We reviewed photographs of the damage, and, at first glance, it appeared likely that the damages were indeed caused by the collision.We therefore contacted the insurer and advocated on behalf of the insured to ensure that a proper appraisal of the damages would be conducted before requiring the client to resort to the legislated appraisal process.The insurer agreed to proceed as we had suggested.

An insured individual received a renewal notice indicating that their insurance premium would increase by 23%.They contacted our Office to inform us of the situation.Our Office reviewed recent decisions issued by the New Brunswick Insurance Board to determine the rate increases that had been approved. We observed that the approved increases were significantly lower than the increase proposed for this client.We then contacted the insurance company to clarify the reasons behind such a substantial increase. The insurer agreed to review the matter.Following their review, the insurer confirmed that an error had occurred and that the insured was, in fact, entitled to a reduction rather than an increase in their annual premium.

Following a single-vehicle accident, the insurer initially determined that the insured was at fault for the loss.However, the available evidence clearly demonstrated that the actions of another adult passenger were the direct cause of the accident.After we engaged with the insurer and reviewed the documented circumstances of the incident, the insurer reassessed its position and agreed not to record the loss as an at-fault accident against the insured.

A consumer contacted our office seeking clarification on whether their insurer could deny coverage for an accident on the basis that the driver did not hold a valid driver’s license at the time of the loss.Under the standard automobile policy wording in New Brunswick, operating a vehicle without a valid driver’s license and without being otherwise qualified to drive may indeed result in a denial of coverage.However, in this particular case, the information provided by the consumer suggested that, despite not holding a valid license at the time, the individual may nonetheless have been qualified to operate a motor vehicle.We advocated on the consumer’s behalf and were able to demonstrate that the driver met the criteria of being qualified to drive. As a result of our intervention, the insurer reassessed its position, and the claim was ultimately approved and paid.

An insured individual contacted us after learning that his property had been uninsured for several weeks. A few weeks prior to his home insurance renewal date, he had compared several different offers in search of a better premium. Pleased with his findings, he secured a lower rate with another agency.He immediately accepted the new offer. Approximately three weeks before the coverage was set to take effect, his new agent informed him that everything was in order and that he should receive the invoices by mail. He then contacted his previous insurer to notify them not to renew his existing policy.Nearly six weeks after accepting the offer, he was informed by his agent that the insurer had declined his application. As a result, he found himself without insurance coverage for three weeks and had to seek coverage elsewhere.Unfortunately, no insurer was willing to insure him.After reviewing all the documentation, we contacted the insurer. In our view, the insurer had taken too long to assess the application, and the consequences of the refusal were significant for the insured.Ultimately, the insurer accepted our recommendations and agreed to provide retroactive coverage for a certain period, allowing the insured time to secure insurance elsewhere.

A consumer contacted our Office seeking assistance following a recent policy cancellation for non-payment. It appears that the only correspondence he received from his insurer was a notice indicating that a payment had been missed and advising him to contact his agent.The consumer stated that he contacted his agent promptly upon receiving the letter, only to be informed that his policy had already been cancelled. He was subsequently offered a new policy at a significantly higher premium.He was advised that the increase was due to being treated as a new client, with no prior insurance history with the insurance company, despite having been insured with the company for nearly 30 years prior to the cancellation and he did not understand why he did not receive any prior cancellation notice or any follow-up communication, such as a phone call.We reached out to the insurance company and within a short period of time the situation was resolved in favor of the consumer.

The insured was traveling through a construction zone where traffic was separated by large cones dividing the median.An 18-wheeler inadvertently pushed one of these large cones into the insured’s lane, resulting in a collision with both the cone and the roadside barrier.The insurer initially opened the claim as a collision loss and rated the incident as at-fault on the insured’s record. This classification would have significantly increased the insured’s premium at the next renewal.Following our intervention, we successfully had the insurer reassess the claim. The loss was reclassified as a comprehensive claim, as the object struck was in motion and unexpectedly obstructed the insured’s path.

An insured individual contacted our Office after her insurance company refused to renew her policy.She had been insured with the same company for over 20 years. However, during the past year, she was involved in an at-fault accident, which was her second such accident within a five-year period. In addition, she had also been involved in a non-fault accident.Her broker made several efforts to assist her in securing continued coverage, but these attempts were unsuccessful, leaving her in a difficult situation.As a last resort, she reached out to our Office. We intervened on her behalf and engaged in discussions with the insurer. Ultimately, the insurance company agreed to renew her automobile insurance policy. The insured was very pleased with this outcome.

An insured individual contacted our Office after an insurance company incorrectly reported, in the DASH system (an internal industry database used to store information on insured individuals), that she had been involved in a motor vehicle accident.In reality, the insured had not been involved in any accident. The error resulted from another insurance company mistakenly entering her driver’s licence number into the system. Consequently, the DASH report indicated that she had an at-fault accident, which created significant difficulties when she attempted to renew her automobile insurance coverage.The insured had been trying to have the error corrected for nearly a year but was repeatedly redirected between insurers without resolution.After she contacted our Office, we initially worked with her current insurer to demonstrate that the information was inaccurate and resulted from an error made by a different insurer—one with whom she had no relationship. This intervention enabled her to proceed with obtaining insurance coverage.We then contacted all insurers involved, including the company responsible for the incorrect entry. After persistent follow-up, we were ultimately successful in having the record corrected. The insured expressed her gratitude to our Office and specifically thanked the staff member who handled her case, noting that she would not have been able to achieve this outcome without his assistance.

The automobile insurance policy issued in New Brunswick contains, among other prohibitions, a condition that an insured must not drive or operate an automobile unless they are authorized by law or qualified to drive or operate the automobile. In this matter, an unlicensed driver was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The insurer initially took the position that the absence of a valid driver’s license constituted a breach of the policy, as the driver was not “authorized by law” to operate the vehicle. We obtained from the insured all relevant facts necessary to assess whether the driver nevertheless met the alternative requirement of being “qualified to drive or operate the automobile.” This determination is fact specific. Based on the information gathered, we were able to demonstrate that, despite lacking a valid licence, the driver possessed sufficient training, experience, and knowledge to safely operate the vehicle and was therefore qualified within the meaning of the policy. After reviewing the evidence presented, the insurer accepted that the driver was qualified to operate the automobile for the purposes of the insurance contract and withdrew its allegation of breach.

Customer accident — A customer contacted our office after an accident and reported that his insurer claimed his automobile policy had been cancelled before the loss. Request for notices — We asked the insured to provide any cancellation notices, especially a registered letter, which is legally required in New Brunswick for certain types of policy cancellations. No registered letter received — The customer stated that he had never received such a letter. Inquiry to insurer — We contacted the insurer and requested: A copy of the registered cancellation letter Canada Post tracking information proving it was sent Insurer unable to provide proof — The insurer could not produce: The letter allegedly sent Any tracking or mailing evidenceCancellation deemed invalid — Because the insurer could not demonstrate compliance with statutory cancellation requirements, it acknowledged that the cancellation was not legally effective.Coverage reinstated — The insurer accepted responsibility for the claim and agreed to provide coverage.

An insured called on our services when he made a claim after a fire. After listing all of the items lost, the insured realized that the total loss exceeded the $63,000 policy limit. He also learned at that time that the $27,000 bill from the contractor would be deducted from the limit. Nobody had taken the time to explain to him that these costs would come out of the $63,000 limit. He also was not given the chance to inspect and inventory his belongings before they were moved. After listening to the insured, we contacted the insurer to explain that its client had not been properly informed and had not had the chance to inspect his property. After several discussions, the insurer accepted our recommendations and agreed to grant the insured the full limit with no deductions. The insurer acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication.

An accident occurred while Mr. B was operating a vehicle owned by Corporation C. At the time of the loss, the only individual listed as a driver on the insurance policy had been deceased for several years. Upon receiving the claim, the insurer denied coverage on the grounds that Mr. B was not an authorized or listed driver. Our office conducted a detailed review of the circumstances and confirmed that the broker had previously been notified of the death of the sole listed driver. We submitted this information to the insurer and advocated on behalf of the insured, asserting that the claim ought to be honoured in light of the facts. Following its reassessment of the file and the information provided, the insurer reversed its initial position and proceeded to pay the claim.

An insured contacted the Office of the Consumer Advocate for Insurance to dispute her insurer’s determination that she was entirely at fault for an accident. We collected the necessary information regarding the circumstances of the collision and assessed whether the decision aligned with the governing regulation. Our review showed that the insurer had applied an incorrect section of the regulation. We subsequently advocated on the consumer’s behalf, outlining our concerns. Upon reconsideration, the insurer concurred with our interpretation and withdrew its assignment of liability to the insured.

An insured individual purchased a life insurance policy to ensure his family would be financially protected in the event of his death. Sadly, he passed away nearly two years after the policy took effect. When the beneficiary submitted a claim, the insurer denied it, alleging that the insured had misrepresented his health by failing to disclose a medical condition on the application. Our Office conducted a thorough review of the policy and the medical records. Based on the information available, we determined that the insurer’s decision to deny the claim was not justified. We engaged in extensive correspondence with the insurer, advocating on behalf of the beneficiary and providing relevant case law supporting the validity of the claim. After several months of discussions, the insurer reversed its decision and paid the full life insurance benefit, including interest from the date of death until the date of payment.