Automobile Fraud

Print this page

OVERVIEW

Automobile insurance fraud and material misrepresentation are growing concerns in Ontario that cost the insurance industry billions of dollars every year. In cases where fraud is apparent or suspected, a lawyer with specialized expertise in defending and prosecuting these cases is essential. While success in a fraud case can lead to a finding of no liability or even a repayment of benefits to the insurer, poor handling can leave insurers exposed to aggravated and punitive damages. Clients need experienced litigators to handle potentially fraudulent claims every step of the way.

McCague Borlack’s Automobile Fraud Group members have extensive experience in handling automobile fraud cases and have succeeded in proving fraud in accident benefits and tort claims.  We work closely with the police, individual insurers, and the insurance industry as a whole in the fight against fraud in Ontario. 

Currently, McCague Borlack is a privacy consultant and advisor to Canadian National Insurance Crime Services (CANATICS), a not-for-profit organization that uses state-of-the-art analytical tools and information-pooling of consumers’ policy and claims data to identify and alert insurers to potentially suspicious automobile insurance claims. CANATICS was incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in January 2013 with the goal of targeting organized and premeditated fraud in the auto insurance industry. Using sophisticated data analytics, CANATICS will generate “alerts” for suspicious claims, which are then sent to the appropriate insurer. Members receiving the alerts will decide whether to proceed with an investigation. McCague Borlack LLP assists CANATICS with ongoing privacy advice to ensure compliance with applicable laws.

SERVICES

When fraud is suspected, it is imperative to retain an experienced fraud lawyer early on in the claims process. Our Automobile Fraud Group can assist with every stage of an automobile insurance fraud claim, from the initial investigation to resolution. 

In handling automobile fraud claims, members of the Automobile Fraud Group regularly attend:

  • examinations for discovery;
  • examinations under oath;
  • mediations;
  • hearings before the Financial Services Commission; and,
  • trial.

We advise clients on a regular basis on all matters relating to automobile fraud. We welcome the opportunity to apply our rich and varied litigation experience in handling your suspect claims. 

CHAIR(S)

MEMBER(S)

Next arrow
Prev arrow

PUBLICATIONS

View All
Default Causation And Standard Of Proof For A Hypothetical Pre-Trial Loss

First Published in Advocates Quarterly. This paper addresses whether the same principles regarding the “real and substantial possibility” standard of proof apply to a hypothetical past loss claim as they do to a hypothetical future loss claim, and the interplay between the two standards of proof applicable to hypothetical claims: balance of probabilities for the “but for” causation test, and “real and substantial possibility” for damages.

A pleading original A Plea for Simple Pleadings

You have just been sued for breach of contract by a former business partner.

As you skim through a legal document that sets out a laundry list of your alleged failures and faux pas, a few paragraphs jump out at you. Why does the document make reference to an argument over the design of your company's logo? And why is there commentary on the not-so-secret office romance between two of your employees? As far as you can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with the contract in dispute.

Default Common Interest Privilege: A New Tool in the Litigation Basket

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that common interest privilege (“CIP”) is a principle of Canadian law. This principle is unlike solicitor-client privilege, in that communication between counsel and a third party may be considered privileged if the shared information is to benefit both parties, especially with respect to the furtherance of a commercial transaction. The court overturned a Federal Court decision which held that that CIP is not a principle of Canadian law.