Overpayment situations can be stressful and complex. Especially where Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) had at one time been terminated and then reinstated, or one or more sources of other income replacement assistance may have been retroactively paid, and possibly at different times. And of course, the overpayment could just be due to calculation error.
We focus only on the recovery period in this
post, which for overpayments is limited to the 12-months prior to a valid notice of overpayment being
issued by the insurer.
But what makes the notice valid? For the answer to this we need to look at
s.52 of the SABS and recent decisions.
What happens when income is paid in goods and
services (payment in kind)?
When it comes to calculating
income for SABS purposes, it is not always as straightforward as the wages on a
pay statement. Occasionally, income comes in the form of goods and/or services.
How do we translate those goods
and services, such as living rent-free in exchange for working as a handyman in
an apartment building, into income when determining an Income Replacement
In a recent LAT decision, the adjudicator determined “An Employer’s Confirmation Form is information reasonably required to assist within the meaning of s. 33(1)” of the SABS (17-005692 v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada).
But can the form really stand alone as the basis of an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) calculation? We suggest that in most cases, it cannot. Although there are exceptions.
The Role Employment Insurance Benefits Play in Calculating an Income Replacement Benefits (IRB)
Employment Insurance (EI) benefits appear in many ways within IRB calculations. They can be the entire basis of eligibility for an IRB, a component of an individual’s pre-accident income, or received post-accident as a form of payment for loss of income.
This blog provides all you need to know about how to treat EI benefits in your calculations.
It may sound like a simple concept at first, but classifying expenses as fixed and variable in the context of a business interruption claim can be tricky. The issue that often trips people up is thinking in absolutes, such as, how would the expense behave in the event the business is shut-down? But, this is not the way to look at this issue.
In our experience, the concept of co-insurance in relation to business interruption is one of the least understood and most feared topics by all parties involved. It could be the setting of appropriate policy limits for business interruption, determining co-insurance compliance, or insured’s feeling unfairly penalized when co-insurance requirements are applied following a claim. Continue Reading!
One of the most contentious issues in any business interruption matter is often the treatment of payroll. Continue Reading!
(Gross Profit vs. Gross Earnings vs. Hybrid Policies)
Traditionally, business interruption insurance policies have fallen under one of two styles, Gross Earnings or Gross Profits. In recent years the consistency in policy styles has been eroding and new hybrid style forms are starting to become more prevalent. Continue Reading
Not all businesses have to file Harmonized Sales Tax (“HST”) remittances. For those which do, they can be a valuable source of information in the claims process… Continue Reading!
When a business suffers a loss it will often lose the ability to sell products or services to its customers. These lost sales, however, are not always permanent and at times the insured can “make-up” the losses after the business resumes operating. Without giving consideration to this fact claim costs may increase, and the insured may be over-indemnified. Continue Reading!