These offers can be misleading for those who don't have a lot of experience reading the terms of insurance policies (see The
Key Elements of an Insurance Contract for a primer), and no matter how many you turn down, the offers typically still keep coming.
The 76 - page decision issued Nov. 4 by the appeal court provided a detailed overview of the trial judge's approach to the case, the original trial evidence put forward, and the
applicable elements of the Insurance Companies Act.
You can buy permanent life insurance (which
combines elements of insurance and savings into one contract), you can buy term insurance (which is pure death benefit protection) and use some other financial product to help you accumulate savings (e.g. mutual funds inside a 401 (k)-RRB-, or you can buy permanent insurance and also buy other financial products, like stocks, mutual funds, real estate or anything else you think would make you money.
Don't Need to Compromise on Your No Claim Bonus - No Claim Bonus is the most
alluring element of an insurance policy, which is a bonus for the policyholder for every claim - free year.
When the policy was sold, the salesperson would project that the cash value would increase at a rate commensurate with a future rate of return based upon insurance company performance, or the investment into which the
savings element of the insurance premium was being invested (such as a mutual fund).
If you were under 25 when you were sold the MTA CCI insurance, you can get a refund for the cost of the life and trauma
element of the insurance (unless you choose to keep the policy).
[85] More generally, in Lopez v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1993), 26 B.C.A.C. 142, 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 157, Hollinrake J.A., writing for the court at para. 21, held that an «insured claim» for the purposes of the Regulations must still import at least
some element of insurance.
In Lopez v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1993), 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 157 (C.A.), the court interpreted the previous version of s. 106 and held that «benefit», as that term was then used in the context of the section as a whole, required
an element of insurance.
The trial judge in Jordan followed Lopez and held (as had the judge in Loeppky) that the change to the wording of s. 106 did not alter the fact that the heading had not changed and that
some element of insurance would still be needed.
At the end of the day the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge and held that
an element of insurance was required to make a benefit deductible under s. 106, and the deduction was therefore denied.
Accordingly, it could not be said that accumulation of sick leave credits involved
an element of insurance.
The Court of Appeal held that as the heading had never been changed since Lopez was decided, there was no logical reason why «compensation similar to a benefit» would not also require
an element of insurance.
The Plaintiff agreed that while the sick bank may well be a «benefit» it was not a benefit which had
any element of insurance and therefore not deductible.
One key finding in Lopez was that the heading of the section «Exclusion of other insured loss» meant that the section at the very least required
an element of insurance be present in any benefit that would be subject to deduction.
The Plaintiff primarily relied on a previous Court of Appeal decision (Lopez v ICBC) in which the Court of Appeal had held that the title to the section s. 106 «Exclusion of other insured loss» meant that «any benefit» as used in s. 106 (1) at the very least required there to be
some element of insurance to the benefit in question.
I want to discuss how
the element of insurance can compromise returns.
It has
an element of insurance, offers attractive returns and if the most unfortunate were to happen, the insurance company pays all the future premiums on your behalf.
Dedicated and experienced claims processor with a thorough understanding of
all elements of insurance claims, including investigation, accounting, and policy modification.