Canadian Underwriter

Category: Claims

Latest twist in a dispute between insurers that’s almost made it to the Supreme Court…twice

In a priority dispute over an auto accident that happened 20 years ago — a case that’ ha’s already gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and back again — the Court of Appeal for Ontario has provided the latest twist in a flip-flopping legal saga.

In Chubb Insurance Company of Canada v. Zurich Insurance Company, the Ontario Court of Appeal found last week that by not paying out accident benefits first — as required by Ontario’s priority dispute rules — and then by not notifying the second payer within 90 days of a priority dispute claim, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada is on the hook to pay for the entire amount of the claimant’s benefits permanently.

The upshot is that Chubb has to pay Zurich Canada almost $1 million to reimburse Zurich for accident benefits it paid to a catastrophically impaired claimant.

Background

Sukhvinder Singh was in an accident while driving a rental car in 2006. No other vehicle was involved. She did not report the crash to the car rental agency.

The rental vehicle at Wheels 4 Rent was insured by Zurich, which Singh did not know.

At the time, Singh believed Chubb was the insurer, and her lawyer contacted Chubb to confirm coverage. Chubb also issued a policy to the rental agency that provided optional accidental death and dismemberment insurance. Singh did not purchase Chubb’s optional coverage.

After experiencing symptoms following her crash, Singh applied for accident benefits from Chubb, thinking she had seen Chubb’s name somewhere at the rental vehicle site. On Nov. 21, 2006, Chubb denied her application, stating: “This is not a personal automobile policy and thus the coverage of Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits does not apply.”

More than a year and a half later, on May 28, 2008, Chubb advised Singh’s lawyer that Zurich was Wheels 4 Rent’s auto insurer. Once Zurich became aware of the claim, it agreed to adjust it, pending the outcome of its priority dispute with Chubb.

Also in the news: Why AI won’t replace human claims adjusters

The case reached the Supreme Court, where Chubb argued the link between Singh and Chubb was not strong enough for Chubb to be considered an ‘insurer,’ as defined in the province’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. But the Supreme Court found there was a sufficient connection between Singh and Chubb, since Chubb was an optional benefits insurer and Singh probably knew about this because of something she saw at the rental agency. Chubb was therefore ruled an ‘insurer’ under the priority dispute rules.

Chubb then assumed carriage of the claim, chose to settle out with Ms. Singh (for more than the near-$1 million already paid out on the claim). Chubb then said that the SCC decision did not address all of the issues that were originally before the arbitrator, and thus, the matter needed to go back.

The original arbitrator, Stan Tessis, had passed away and so the court appointed a new arbitrator, Douglas Cunningham. Among other things, he was asked to resolve the issue of whether there wa a deflection of Singh’s claim, and if so, by who, and with what repercussions.

The arbitrator’s decision then flip-flopped its way back up to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. This time, the dispute was over which insurer was responsible for the amount Zurich paid out to Singh once it became aware of the claim. Zurich paid out $$998,387 to Singh, whose claim by then was deemed a catastrophic injury.

An arbitrator ruled Chubb had to reimburse Zurich for the total amount, since Chubb was the first payor and it did not give Zurich the required 90-day notice of a priority dispute. But on appeal, Ontario’s Superior Court ruled both Chubb and Zurich had to split responsibility for the payment.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal overturned that decision, finding Chubb owed the full amount.

“When Chubb received the claim, it simply refused to pay; it made no efforts to identify Zurich as an insurer,” a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal found. “Given that Chubb had a relationship with Wheels 4 Rent, it would have been easy for Chubb to identify and notify Zurich as the correct insurer.

“Instead, Chubb waited a year and a half to provide this information to Ms. Singh. By this point, Ms. Singh was left without benefits and her condition had seriously worsened. In addition, given the delay, Zurich was not able to investigate and adjust the claim in a timely way.

“Section 2 of the [priority dispute regulations] is designed to guard against the type of harm Ms. Singh experienced; the provision is meant to ensure that disputes between insurers do not interfere with the prompt payment of claims to people who were injured in motor vehicle accidents.

“Section 3 is designed to guard against the prejudice Chubb’s delay in notifying Zurich caused; the insurer who is ultimately responsible for paying a claim should have a chance to investigate as soon as possible after the accident to adjust the claim and assess its risk.

“Given the circumstances of this case, the second arbitrator made no errors in exercising his discretion to require Chubb to pay the full amount of benefits owed to Ms. Singh permanently.”

Editor’s Note: The story has been updated to correct the original reporting, which inaccurately stated the Supreme Court had sent the matter back to arbitration. In fact, Chubb found the Supreme Court did not address matters that needed further arbitration. CU apologizes for the error.

May 4, 2026
Why AI won’t replace human claims adjusters

Claims surges caused by natural catastrophes (NatCats) or other major events create bottlenecks for insurance claims adjusters. And that’s where manual work processes can collapse.

That has some firms developing artificial intelligence (AI) agents and other options to take up slack by triaging clients – freeing human adjusters to help people who are in genuine distress, say two authors of a recent Deloitte report on property and casualty (P&C) insurance claims trends.

“Automation scales. So, you’re able to have those conversations about your claim, and [it] removes a lot of that administration that bogs [processes] down when there’s a surge event,” says Colin Asselstine, a director and insurance claims leader at Deloitte.

A lot of claims-related AI development centres on creating engines to do data validation, policy and coverage checks, triage, routing, document ingestion, classification, summation, notification and status updates.

“Those are all really good candidates for automation,” Asselstine tells Canadian Underwriter. “It allows you to protect the customer experience, make sure your operations [are] resilient. You give back to the customer that really needs your support.”

Related: AI is shrinking the pool for junior hires. Is apprenticeship drying up, too?

But automation also must react to the claim type.

Chris Duvinage, a partner and national P&C insurance segment leader at Deloitte, notes that while NatCat damage is often property-specific, that’s not always the case.

“The second you have some element of bodily injury, [the person wants to] talk to somebody. So just because you can technically automate that process [using] AI…it doesn’t mean it’s [always advisable],” he tells CU.

Adoption of AI will, though, create different work and training needs for adjusters’ workforces.

“You don’t want to move away from the existing contact centers,” says Duvinage. “In fact, you may want to train your people to be even more empathetic…around some of the people skills and take the…lower-value work like data entry, and copy and pasting between systems away from them so they can truly focus on [clients] in the moment, rather than trying to solve back-end systems and processes.”

Adds Asselstine, “You want them to look at complex coverage, complex liabilities. Look at escalations, negotiations. That’s where humans are effective, and that’s where [AI] is pushing towards using our skill sets as humans.”

Which is why adjusters, particularly older workers, shouldn’t be afraid of losing their jobs.

“From an age perspective…it’s those folks with the experience that can be more empathetic; that have a solution on the phone and are…better-trained to have some of the customer-facing conversations,” says Duvinage.

Related: Why claims pros see an influx of fire claims during deep freezes

The best adjusters help customers understand their post-NatCat-event status and can explain complex insurance processes so that clients understand their next steps, says Asselstine.

“Depending on the claim, there’s a lot of that empathy and the trust and feeling…for a customer when they’re under stress – and being able to relate to tell [them that] everything [will] be okay. That’s true today. That will be true tomorrow,” he tells CU.

Adjusting firms, insurance companies, and some brokers must also prepare for how AI augmentation will help both veterans and new hires improve work processes. Those who get comfortable working alongside AI tools will benefit from their ability to do tasks like summarizing documents and even providing suggestions for next steps.

“It’ll listen to a conversation. It’ll take a summary of that. It’ll pull up the policy. It’ll pull up your internal standard operating procedures (SOP), and say, ‘Based off what I heard, I think these are [the] relevant areas of [the] policy, and this is the relevant area of our SOP,’” Asselstine says.

“It’s [giving] suggestions for humans to then validate. When the guardrails are up [around AI] and insurers get comfortable that 99.99% of time the model is giving the right answer, you can then say, ‘For these simple claims I’m good with the model making the decision.’”

May 1, 2026
How reinsurance rates, auto losses factored into industry’s 2025 results

Canada’s property and casualty (P&C) insurers posted strong underwriting performance in 2025, despite a massive rise in reinsurance expenses following 2024’s record Cat year.

And auto results remained weak but improved from the previous year, according to a 2025 year-in-review from the Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corporation’s (PACICC) latest quarterly Solvency Matters report.

In 2024, insurers paid out more than $9 billion in severe weather-related insured losses. Last year, insurers benefitted from a comparatively mild Canadian catastrophe season — about $7 billion less than 2025 at $2.4 billion.

“However, the industry did experience a sharp rise in Net Expenses from Reinsurance Contracts Held — which increased 593% in 2025, driving an unfavourable $6.9 billion swing between reinsurance premiums paid and claim recoveries — effectively mirroring the year-over-year catastrophe loss results,” writes Jeff Stewart, PACICC’s vice president of finance.

Still, the industry’s underwriting performance remained strong last year. Insurance Service Expenses declined by 4.1% and Insurance Revenues climbed 6.5%, together driving a $3.45 billion increase in the Net Insurance Service Result — up a substantial 29.9% year-over-year.

Stewart notes Canadian P&C insurers turned in a “standout performance” in 2025, delivering robust profitability and a return on equity (ROE) of 17.1%. “The result marks a notable step up from the 14.9% posted in 2024 and sits roughly 700 basis points above the industry’s 50-year long-run average,” he writes. “The results for 2025 mark the 6th consecutive year with ROEs above the long-run average.”

Auto results

When it comes to auto, 2025 underwriting performance in Canada’s private passenger auto insurance market remained notably weak. Last year, private passenger auto Net Comprehensive Combined Ratios (NCCRs) exceeded 100% in every province and territory except Quebec, Ontario and the Northwest Territories.

NCCR incorporates Insurance Service Expenses, Reinsurance Costs, General and Operating Expenses, as well as Net Insurance and Reinsurance Finance Expenses relative to Net Insurance Revenue. An NCCR above 100% means an underwriting loss and indicates the line of business is eroding the industry’s capital base.

“While the industry-wide result sits at 100.7% and has improved modestly by 2.8% compared to last year, these outcomes nonetheless underscore the persistence of an unsustainable trend,” Stewart writes.

The report doesn’t indicate what contributed to the unprofitability. But Insurance Bureau of Canada reported Thursday that despite a recent drop in auto thefts, claims remain historically high.

For example, over the last ten years, theft-related insurance claims increased by 38%. Over the same period, the value of theft claims increased by 169%, IBC says. Last year, the value of theft claims was $724 million, up from $269 million ten years ago.

Wildfire woes

For the industry, Canada’s second-worst fire season in 2025 also weighed heavily on personal property insurance results, particularly across Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

“Each of these provinces reported NCCRs above 100%, with underwriting performance deteriorating most sharply in Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan, where ratios climbed beyond 120%,” PACICC’s report says. “Beyond the wildfire-impacted regions, PEI and Nunavut also recorded unfavourable NCCRs for the year.”

Not surprisingly, commercial property and liability insurance remained the most profitable segments for Canada’s P&C insurers in 2025, with “highly positive” NCCRs of 89.3% and 87.9%, respectively. The line continues to see ample capacity and downward pressure on rates.

The only localized exceptions to NCCRs over 100% emerged in Newfoundland and Labrador in commercial property, and Yukon in both commercial property and commercial liability. “These isolated areas of underperformance stand out against an otherwise broadly favourable commercial underwriting environment,” PACICC says.

Looking at combined results by province, Newfoundland and Labrador stood out as the sole jurisdiction reporting an unfavourable result in 2025, with an NCCR of 106.8%. By contrast, Quebec, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut all delivered highly favourable outcomes, each posting NCCRs below 90%.

Underwriting profitability across PACICC’s 160 member insurers continues to vary. In 2025, approximately 9% of insurers reported negative Net Insurance Service Results.

“No single trend, however, appears to explain these outcomes,” Stewart writes. “Instead, weaker performance was driven by insurer-specific circumstances, often tied to unfavourable underwriting in select product lines or a high concentration of exposure within particular provinces.”

April 30, 2026
Why Ontario’s new tow truck regulations aren’t reducing insurers’ costs

Ontario’s new centralized regulation of the tow truck industry has not lowered insurance company’s claims bills, in part because the province hasn’t adopted a cap on tow truck fees, an insurance exec said at the Insurance Institute of Canada’s annual symposium in Toronto Thursday.

“The Ontario government took a step to centralize the regulation of towing, taking it up from the municipal bylaw level and bringing it under MTO [Ministry of Transportation Ontario] provincially. This went live Jan. 1, 2024,” said Evan Stubbings, director of government affairs at Desjardins Group. “Had this been done correctly, I think this could have been a really good thing.

“But what they did is they took the licensing element from the municipal regime, but they did not take the maximum rate cap that used to be in municipal bylaw[s].”

For several years, one of the frustrations of claims professionals had been the multitude of different tow fee caps enshrined in various municipal bylaws.

In a series on total losses published in 2019, Canadian Underwriter interviewed Elliott Silverstein, manager of government relations at CAA South Central Ontario. He explained at the time the reason why insurers wanted the province to establish caps on tow fees.

“Right now, municipalities have varying regulations and bylaws around how much a tow can cost, how the process works in terms of hooking the vehicle up, and where the vehicle goes,” Silverstein told CU at the time. “Because there is no specific set of provincial regulations, the consumer really is at the mercy of what the municipalities have set out in their regulations.

“For municipalities that don’t have regulations, it is effectively the Wild West, where no rules apply, because there is no provincial model or minimum standard to work from.”

Insurers at the time gave CU examples of situations in which a towing company might pick up a damaged car inside the border of a municipality with a lower towing fee cap, and take it to a neighbouring municipality instead with a higher fee cap.

Under Ontario’s 2021 Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, implemented in 2024, the province included a section that addresses “rate regulation and transparency.”

This section of the bill does not set out maximum towing fees. Instead, it says tow truck “operators must publish their maximum rates for towing and storage with the MTO. They cannot charge more than their published rates,” as summarized by 613 Towing.

Elsewhere, the legislation says consumers have the right to use which towing company to use, and the first 10 km for the tow truck to get to the crash site is not chargeable. “Tow drivers are prohibited from recommending repair shops, lawyers, or medical services unless specifically asked,” 613 Towing states.

But the upshot of the lack of a cap on towing fees is “death by 1,000 cuts,” Stubbings said at the symposium.

He observed car thieves could steal a single car and make $80,000 on the resale of the stolen car. But they can also make up the same $80,000 by getting involved with the towing industry.

“In Toronto, it used to cost you $310.44 plus HST to tow a vehicle, all services included,” Stubbings said. “And now, since January 1st of 2024, it’s very common for our claims teams — this isn’t a Desjardins point, this is an industry point — to see the initial tow bill for just a hook-it-and-go-away fender bender [to be] at least $1,500.

“An actuary in the room can do a percentage increase on that. But you start to understand why there’s a financial incentive for [auto thieves] to still be in the game.”

And that’s why there’s violence in the towing industry, added Karin Ots, senior vice president of regulatory and government relations at Aviva Canada. She referenced three tow trucks being lit on fire over a single day last week in Brampton.

“Violence goes to where the money is,” Ot said. “The fighting is not over the glory of being a tow truck driver, but the money.”

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect the fact that Evan Stubbings said the cost of a tow was actually $310.44 and not $1,044, as previously reported. CU apologizes for the error.

April 28, 2026
Why Ontario auto reform may drive more lawsuits

Multiple Canadian Underwriter sources believe Ontario’s auto reforms to be introduced this summer could spark new lawsuits – or even endanger the assets of some insureds.

Ontario has a hybrid private auto insurance system that pays out accident benefits to insured drivers injured in auto collisions. It also has a tort system allowing injured drivers to sue to recover compensation for their injuries from at fault drivers. As of July 1, Ontario is making several mandatory accident benefits optional, including income replacement and housekeeping benefits, so that insured drivers can save money on premium by opting not to receive optional benefits.

However, the industry is wondering if any savings gained from the optional accident benefits side may in fact increase costs on the tort side.

Now, and after July 1, Ontario drivers are required carry minimum liability coverage providing protection in the event they’re found legally responsible for injuries or damages to others, notes Michelle Dodokin, head of auto insurance supervision at the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA).

“In the Ontario system, the right to sue is limited to accidents causing certain serious or permanent injuries as defined by the Insurance Act,” she tells CU. “The right to sue is based on respective fault for the cause of an accident.”

If consumers are concerned, she adds, they should review their policies with their brokers or insurance agents.

Related: Optionality could leave passengers, even children, without auto coverage

All Ontario drivers carry a mandatory $200,000 of personal liability insurance that covers drivers for claims against them if they’re at fault in an accident, “against claims for compensation from not-at-fault victims up to that limit,” says David Marshall, who has served as a senior advisor to the Government of Ontario on auto insurance and pension funds.

He says if the claim exceeds $200,000, the driver would be liable to pay the excess “from their personal assets unless they have purchased excess coverage, which is optional.”

He adds most drivers currently purchase about $1 million of personal liability insurance, “So, the risk of losing your home is minimal.”

Industry experts have also raised questions about whether auto policies renewing after July 1 could leave uninsured injured persons, such as pedestrians or cyclists, without access to specific benefits they can currently access through an insured driver’s policy – such as income replacement, housekeeping, dependent care or death benefits. “There is no way to provide them with insurance under the new auto insurance rules in Ontario,” Marshall tells CU. “If they are not at fault and need these benefits, they will have to sue the at-fault driver, which is one of the reasons litigation costs are going to rise.”

Dodokin stresses pedestrians and cyclists would still have access to the mandatory medical and rehabilitation accident benefits.

“Additional coverages such as income replacement may also be available to them through supplementary benefits, such as disability coverage through employer benefit programs. Pedestrians and cyclists may also purchase a driver’s policy, which provides accident benefit coverages to someone that does not own their own vehicle,” she says.

Related: Opinion | Why Ontario pedestrians without auto insurance will need access to optional benefits

In some cases, uninsured people injured in auto accidents (and who cannot access insurance under the new rules) may be left with no choice but to sue, says Marshall.

“It is important to understand that a person can sue an at-fault driver for economic loss – for example, the cost of health care and wage loss,” he tells CU. “They can also sue for non-monetary loss called ‘pain and suffering,’ but this latter category needs proof that you have suffered a serious permanent injury. And there is also a need to prove that your suffering is worth more than a given deductible which today is about $48,000.”

In practical terms, Marshall says Ontario’s optionality reforms do mean innocent pedestrians or those who don’t have auto insurance, but whose needs exceed the $65,000 mandatory medical coverage (which they can access) will have to hire a lawyer and wait while the legal process runs its course. The same is true for those who experience wage loss.

That can take “two or more years [for them] to get paid,” he notes.

“In the meantime, they will have to pay for medical care [that’s] not covered by OHIP out of their own pocket and suffer wage loss till they can get back to work – unless they also have wage protection through an employer policy,” he says.

He says both the changes, and the “sheer complexity of the new rules,” could increase disputes and litigation.

Dodokin points out FSRA recognizes the insurance coverage changes can create questions for consumers, and that the regulator “collaborated with insurers and brokers to provide clear consumer information materials to ease this transition.”

April 27, 2026
New evacuation alert issued for B.C. community after landslide

Officials have issued a new evacuation alert for residents in an area of northeastern British Columbia where a landslide has cut off access to the neighbourhood.

The Peace River Regional District issued a notice to an expanded group of homes, telling residents of Old Fort that they should be prepared to leave on short notice.

The 400-metre-long slide formed on Sunday, triggering the initial evacuation order for dozens of residents after it cut off road access in and out of the community.

Transport Minister Mike Farnworth said creating an alternate route could cost between $250 and $300 million and still wouldn’t guarantee safety from landslides.

Staff from the ministry are monitoring the slide to see how it’s moving, he said during question period at the B.C. legislature in Victoria on Thursday.

“It has slowed down somewhat but it initially was moving at a rate of about 90 centimetres an hour, which is pretty significant, pretty fast,” Farnworth said.

The latest alert says the landslide poses a potential danger to life and health caused by increasing ground movement in the community, which is about five kilometres south of Fort St. John.

Residents who were not able to leave after an evacuation order was issued late Monday have been asked to shelter in a safe place and conserve essential supplies.

Jordan Kealy, the member of the legislature for the area, said about 70 of the 150 people in the community have evacuated, while others have chosen to stay.

He said this is the third time his constituents have been forced to evacuate from a landslide in recent years, and the provincial government should have reinforced the slope where the landslide occurred.

Kealy said at least one resident has expressed concern to him about looters.

“Some people have their reasons for not wanting to leave,” he said.

Kealy said the area is a nice place to live, but residents who want to leave could have difficulty selling their homes.

“If there’s a scenario of the hillside giving way and they don’t actually fix it, who’s going to want to come in and buy your home?” he asked.

Kealy said there’s still snow on the ground in Old Fort and the landslide is in an area where water travels.

“It can cause things to move and it could be unpredictable,” he said, adding that he expects the evacuation alerts to be in place for some time.

April 24, 2026
One or two at-fault collisions: how much rates rise
An at-fault collision can increase car insurance rates by up to 70% after one accident and more than 160% after two, shows a case example from LowestRates.ca.

“An at-fault collision can have a major impact on auto insurance costs because fault is one of the main factors insurers consider when deciding whether premiums should increase after a claim,” the rate aggregator says. “LowestRates.ca auto insurance quoter data shows how quickly that higher-risk assessment can translate into higher premiums in Toronto.”

Using their data, LowestRates.ca found that for a 35-year-old Toronto driver with a clean record, the lowest available monthly premium was $289.75. After one at-fault collision within the last four years, that rose to $491.67 per month. After two within the same period, it climbed to $760.50.

Quotes were based on a hypothetical 35-year-old single employed male driver living in Toronto’s M6H 1X1 postal code. Driving a financed 2025 Honda Civic LX 4DR for personal use, he had driveway parking, winter tires, and collision and comprehensive coverage.

The driver had a G licence, had been with his current insurance company for two years, and had been listed on an insurance policy since 2007. The profile also assumed the driver commutes 5 km to and from work daily (10,000 km annually) and did not opt for telematics or bundling discounts.

“When a collision leads to a claim, fault is one of the main things insurers look at when setting premiums at renewal,” says Fleur Dsouza, a licensed insurance broker who provides expert commentary for LowestRates.ca. “If a driver is found to be 50% or more at fault after the investigation, rates can go up.

“Even one at-fault collision can have a noticeable impact on insurance costs, and more than one can leave drivers with fewer affordable options.”

The effects of multiple at-fault collisions

Drivers with multiple at‑fault collisions may be considered too high‑risk by many insurers and could be declined for coverage altogether, LowestRates.ca warns in an article.

When standard markets are no longer available, facility insurance — designed specifically for the highest‑risk drivers — may be the only option, typically with substantially higher premiums.

To help drivers avoid added complications, Dsouza highlights four steps for clients to take after a collision:

Collect information and document the scene carefully: Fault is assessed later by insurers using available evidence and Ontario’s Fault Determination Rules. Evidence such as dash cam footage can help strengthen a customer’s case and, in some situations, support a change in fault determination, although that is relatively uncommon.

Take photos or videos where possible: Images of vehicle damage, the crash scene, road conditions and any visible injuries can help support the claims process. Witness contact information can also be valuable.

Exchange key information:This includes full name, home address, phone number, driver’s licence number, insurance company name and policy number, vehicle make and model, and licence plate number.

Report the collision properly: Drivers should follow provincial reporting requirements and notify their insurer promptly. Attempting to settle damages privately can create complications later.

Most Ontario insurers consider at‑fault collisions for up to six years, LowestRates.ca reports. Accident forgiveness insurance is one way to protect yourself from an increase after your first at-fault collision.

“Accident forgiveness can help prevent a rate increase after a first at-fault collision, but it doesn’t erase the accident from a driver’s record,” Dsouza says. “That protection also usually stays with the insurer offering it, which means it typically won’t carry over if a driver switches providers.

“It can help lower the short-term premium impact, but the accident remains part of the driver’s insurance history.”
April 24, 2026
62% of Canadians aren’t worried about flood risk: Intact

A majority of Canadians underestimate their exposure to flood risk, even though flooding remains Canada’s most common and costly natural hazard.

Sixty-two percent of Canadians aren’t concerned about flooding in their home or community, according to new survey data released by Intact Financial Corporation on Apr. 1.

Despite this, federal data shows 80% of major Canadian cities are wholly or partially built on or near floodplains.

Intact’s survey was conducted by Léger among 1,639 Canadians between March 13-16.

The finding highlights Canada’s persistent “national flood risk blind spot,” as Intact calls it, which continues to influence preparedness and insurance uptake.

Many Canadians have yet to take action

With spring thaws accelerating flood risks, Intact is urging Canadians to prepare and reduce their exposure to costly damage from rapid snowmelt and rain, which can overwhelm blocked drains and gutters, leading to pooled water near foundations and seepage into homes.

Simple preventive actions, such as maintaining drainage systems or installing sump pumps, can significantly reduce damage, yet many homeowners have not taken these steps, Intact notes.

Even among those willing to act, “access to trusted professionals is emerging as a notable barrier to risk mitigation,” Intact says. According to the insurer, one in five Canadians cite difficulty securing reliable contractors as among their top three obstacles to taking additional steps to protect their home against extreme weather.

Misplaced focus

The persistent perception gap highlighted by Intact’s finding is reinforced by how Canadians think about water-related risks more broadly.

While 2024 saw several significant flooding events across Canada, 2025 was comparatively benign for major flood events.

In quieter years, attention often shifts to more visible or seasonal risks.

Separate industry data shows Canadians are increasingly concerned about winter-related risks such as burst pipes and power outages.

According to First Onsite Property Restoration’s annual property and weather survey, released in December, seven in 10 Canadians are worried about winter storms and power outages, while 68% are concerned about extreme cold and burst pipes.

Despite this, most actual winter damage stems from routine flooding scenarios that involve drain backups and sump pump failures, First Onsite says.

This can include spring snowmelt overwhelming municipal drainage systems, ice damming that forces water back into roofs and walls, and heavy rainfall that exceeds grading or foundation drainage capacity, allowing water to pool and seep into basements. In urban areas, aging infrastructure and limited stormwater capacity can compound the issue, turning moderate rainfall into localized flooding events.

Individually, these incidents may appear minor. But they generate a steady volume of insurance claims every year, with mostly preventable losses that can accumulate significantly across portfolios, even in a year of virtually no headline-grabbing disasters.

The situation sees more Canadians opting to prepare for the risks they notice, and not always for the ones most likely to cause loss.

Bridging the awareness gap

Historically, industry surveys consistently point to awareness gaps, with many Canadians either unaware of their flood risk or assuming they’re not exposed, even when living in flood-prone areas.

The challenge for the industry is managing escalating losses while closing the gap that continues to influence Canadians’ mitigation behaviour and coverage decisions.

In the decade before 2024’s record-breaking catastrophic events, floods have cost insurers on average $800 million a year, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

April 24, 2026
Spring gets motorcycles out of garages — and into accidents
With spring comes the lure of the open road and, for some, motorcycling.

Which means motorcyclists – including riders of mopeds, limited-speed motorcycles, scooters, and trikes – need to brush up on their skills, B.C.’s public auto insurer says.

Almost half (49%) of crashes in which a motorcyclist was deemed responsible can be linked to the rider’s skills and a loss of control, says an Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) press release.

Common skill deficits include improper braking (such as a failure to stop or skidding), loss of control when confronted by road hazards, or emergency braking and lane changes leading to collisions with other vehicles.

“Motorcyclists are over three times more likely (325%) to be injured or killed in a crash compared to people in a car,” ICBC says, citing five-year average data from 2019 to 2023. The insurer urges riders to practice critical skills like hard breaking and steering around hazards in preparation for the motorcycling season.

“Wearing protective gear and developing strong riding skills are important steps riders can take to reduce their risk,” it adds.

Also in the news: What’s the latest on the feds’ flood insurance backstop?

ICBC offers some tips for riders, including:

Checking brakes, chains, cables and tires, and changing the oil to ensure the bike is road-ready. If a motorcycle hasn’t been ridden for a few years, it’s wise to have a mechanic look it over.

Stay focused and ride at speeds that give enough time to stop or steer if hazards appear.

Always wear protective gear, including a helmet (preferably full-face) that meets or exceeds legal safety standards.

Ride like you’re invisible. Never assume drivers can see you and strive to avoid drivers’ blind spots.

“We know riders are excited to get back out on the road this spring, and we want them to feel confident and prepared,” says Kathleen Nadalin, road safety manager at ICBC. “Taking time to focus on skills and preparation early in the season can help riders have a safer riding season.”

ICBC’s data finds distraction is the top contributing factor for motorcycle crashes, followed by speed and rider error or rider confusion. Roughly 34% of motorcycle crashes annually are single-vehicle incidents and the average age of motorcyclists killed or injured in B.C. is 46.

Inexperience isn’t always the primary factor in a crash. ICBC data shows motorcyclists injured or killed in B.C. have typically been licensed for more than 10 years.

Citing five-year averaged police data from 2019 to 2023, ICBC says crashes in the province lead to an average of 712 motorcyclists being injured or killed every year. Most of these incidents happen in the Lower Mainland, where an average of 327 motorcyclists are injured or killed annually. B.C.’s southern interior sees the second-highest number of motorcyclists killed or injured annually (189), followed by 162 on Vancouver Island, and 34 in northern B.C.

Driver alertness critical

As more motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users take to B.C.’s roads, ICBC has asked drivers to stay alert, leave space, and take extra time to look for motorcyclists and other road users.

Drivers are urged to pay particular attention at at intersections and when making left turns.

ICBC data finds the biggest contributing factor for drivers involved in motorcycle crashes is distraction, followed by speed and following too closely.

The public insurer offers a few tips for drivers:

When passing, leave at least one metre of space between the car and the motorcycle on slower roads, and 1.5 metres on roads with speed limits over 50 km/h.

Stay alert – motorcycles are smaller than cars and can be harder to see.

Motorcycle crashes in B.C. happen most often at intersections, so drivers should carefully scan “and take an extra moment to look for motorcycles when turning left.”

Leave at least three to four seconds of following distance behind a motorcycle and always travel at a safe speed.
April 22, 2026
A man jumps out of the way of a truck, which then kills his fiancée. Is he “involved in” an accident?

A man who instinctively jumped out of the way of a U-Haul truck and saw his fiancée, who was walking beside him, get struck and killed by the vehicle was “involved in” the accident, and thus entitled to accident benefits for his psychological injuries, a tribunal has ruled.

The man’s auto insurer, Coachman Insurance Company, denied his claim on the basis that the truck had not touched him, and the psychological injuries he suffered were based on seeing his fiancée get killed.

That made him simply a witness to the scene, the insurer argued, and so he wasn’t really “involved in” the motor vehicle accident.

Coachman “submits that the dominant feature of the [claimant’s] psychological injuries was the act of witnessing his fiancée [being] struck and killed, and the aftermath. I disagree,” wrote Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal vice chair Trina Morissette in a decision released last week.

“In my view, the dominant feature is the U-Haul truck that caused the [claimant] to take evasive action to avoid injury. I also find it was reasonable for the [claimant] to believe his life was in danger by the approaching vehicle, which, only seconds later, collided with and killed his fiancée who was beside him.”

Jaspreet Dhaliwal and his fiancée were walking together on the sidewalk on Mar. 8, 2025, when a U-Haul truck suddenly drove up onto the curb towards the couple. Dhaliwal jumped out of the way.

But the truck hit his fiancée, who was pushed into a storefront window and killed on impact. Emergency personnel attended the scene, and an ambulance transported Dhaliwal to hospital.

The couple had been in a committed relationship for three years prior to the incident. They were engaged to be married in July 2024, moved in together in September 2024, and were to be married in July 2025.

Also in the news: Industry veteran Heather Masterson announces next role

At an Examination Under Oath two months after the incident, Dhaliwal testified the truck missed hitting him by approximately one metre. The vehicle did not hit him, he did not fall to the ground, and was not physically injured.

His accident benefits claim was for an “acute psychological and emotional fragility,” the LAT decision states, “which he submits he continues to manifest since the accident.”

In denying Dhaliwal benefits, Coachman relied on several LAT decisions that found claimants who witness an accident are “not involved in” the accident, even if there is a fatality. In these decisions, the tribunal found a claimant has to be physically injured to be “involved” in the accident.

LAT rejected this argument, because the psychological pain was caused by fearing for his own life, and not simply the trauma of witnessing what happened to his fiancée.

“I agree with [Dhaliwal] that he was not a simple witness to the accident nor did his involvement arise from simply witnessing the aftermath of the accident,” Morrissette wrote. He “was within mere feet of the approaching U-Haul truck and had to physically jump out the vehicle’s path to avoid possibly being struck.

“In my view, ‘but for’ the approaching vehicle, the situation would not have required [Dhaliwal] to take immediate action to evade the approaching vehicle. Had [he] not jumped out of the way, he could have sustained physical injuries, or worse. In my view, [Dhaliwal] was engaged as a participant, hence, he was ‘involved in’ the accident.”

April 20, 2026