Across Ontario, Insurance and Indemnity companies are approaching lawyers for business. These products have some basic similarities. This has bred a lot of confusion about these products – lawyers (and even judges) have mistakenly used the term “insurance” to describe an indemnity product.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Insurance policies have distinct advantages over Indemnity contracts. Insurance companies are licensed and regulated, their capital is protected, and they have decades of global experience. The Insurance product gives you Delegated Authority. And courts in Ontario are finding After-The-Event (“ATE”) insurance is a strong weapon against Security for Costs.
We have researched the two leading companies offering these products in Ontario, their features and benefits, and recent Ontario cases. (Terms and figures in this article based on information available as of August 2015.)
Court cases
Two recent Ontario cases show the additional security arising from ATE Insurance:
- In the case of Brent Grotz v. 1392275 Ontario Inc. o/a Hilton Garden Inn Toronto/Markham et al the plaintiff’s lawyer was able to use ATE Insurance to defeat a Security for Costs motion.
- In the case of Alary v. Brown, 2015 ONSC 3021, the Ontario court found the Indemnity product to be weaker than Insurance and thus not able to defeat a Security for Costs order.
Globally, ATE insurance is a mature mainstream product, developed primarily in the United Kingdom where it is now mandatory. Recovery of ATE insurance premiums as disbursement was proven in Callery v Gray The key difference is that Insurance is offered by a licensed Canadian insurer, who is subject to strict rules and regulations under the Insurance Companies Act, which requires rigorous capital requirements and practices, including access to an Ombudsperson. An Indemnity agreement is a non-regulated contract. If an Insurance company goes under, their capital base is protected via the government-approved, industry-funded Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corporation (PACICC), but an Indemnity company’s base is limited to its investors’ capital. You can contact the federal Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) to discuss the benefits of using a licensed and regulated insurer, and the potential ramifications to your firm of not doing so. Another difference is the set-off clause in the Indemnity product, which is triggered when dealing with failing to beat offers (Rule 49). The Indemnity product will set off the damages against any adverse costs awards, only kicking in indemnity when the damages reach $0. The Insurance product does not have such a clause, so the policy pays immediately and on top of the damages, which results in your client keeping their win. Pre-discovery: 3% if settled pre-trial, 4% at trial. Post-mediation before pre-trial: 6.5% if settled pre-trial, 9.5% at trial. Comparing the Insurance and Indemnity products available in Ontario, you will see these similarities: As you may be aware, our firm has been working diligently to find the best “After-The-Event” legal cost protection on the market for both lawyers and plaintiffs. We reviewed several options: 1) offering our own indemnity product, 2) securing a broker’s license and providing an insurance product, or 3) forming a strategic relationship with a well-established insurance company and broker and offering their products to our clients. We hired an independent researcher to analyze the products available today, to see which ones provide the best protection at the most reasonable costs. We are pleased to say, that we have chosen to endorse the “ATE Insurance Product” (over an indemnity product). The overwhelming advantages of costs, security, and protection, for both lawyer and plaintiff, speak for themselves. Starting immediately, Nudorra Capital will be endorsing “NuFile Protect” an ATE Insurance product offered through a strategic relationship we have with our Insurance Broker. I assure you, that this is the best and most secure product available today. For further information or to set up an appointment please contact Jeffrey Gottheil at Nudorra Capital at 416-342-9590 or email jgottheil@nudorra.com at your earliest convenience.Product differences
We find these additional differences when we compare these products:
This table summarizes product differences:
DIFFERENCES
Leading Insurance company
Leading Indemnity company
Regulation
Insurance Companies Act
Non-regulated contract
Issuer’s capital
Government-approved PACICC maintains a liquidity fund
Limited to investors’ capital
Disbursements and Adverse costs
Covers both
Offers Adverse costs coverage separately
Delegated Authority
Given to plaintiff’s Lawyer
Not available
Plaintiff loses case
Covers premium
Fee might/not be waived
Set-off clause
No
Yes
Unsuccessful claim
Allows plaintiff to keep awarded damages and pays out adverse costs or disbursements on top
Pays costs owed by plaintiff (after awarded damages) and plaintiff owes nothing
Client changes lawyers
Portable (i.e., transferrable by client) in some cases
Not portable
Amount of coverage
Minimum $100,000
Plaintiff and their lawyers determine amount
Pricing
Premium starts at $1,350
Fee depends on stage of litigation:
Product similarities