Qualifications to get your money back on balance protection insurance:

10/6/2011

 
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1606455/Reclaim-PPI-premiums--payment-protection-insurance.html This link speaks to balance protection insurance cases in England...It is the same qualification as it is in Canada...Go through the list in the article & see if any of the factors apply to your own situation...If it does apply, then you can qualify for a refund here in Canada...It is the same product, just a slightly different name...

http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2009/credit_card_catch/main.html Other people who have been screwed in Canada by balance protector insurance...Read the Comment section, watch the video...CBC Marketplace...

http://www.moneyhighstreet.com/finance-news/all-to-stop-selling-single-premium-payment-protection-insurance-ppi/ Why payment protector insurance has been banned in England...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jan/30/payment-protection-insurance-ban Notice that insurance cannot be sold bundled with credit card activation anymore...

http://www.stikeman.com/cps/rde/xchg/se-en/hs.xsl/3812.htm Is there a possibility of a class action lawsuit against Assurant Solutions Canada, the underwriter for balance protection insurance on credit cards?
Assurant Solutions, also known as ABLAC, American Bankers Life Assurance company of Florida, & Canada Premier Life Assurance, were all owned by AIG Canada, who was bought by BMO Bank of Montreal on April 1, 2009...Combined, AIG CANADA, through various arms & names, underwrote for TD Canada trust, RBC, Sears, Capital One & CIBC, & possibly others I am not aware of...

  I myself (Sari Grove), am out $2,684.70 plus interest...(My husband, Joseph Grove is also on that account)...It appears there are thousands more like us, just from looking at comments on the CBC marketplace site in 2009 when they did the documentary on balance protection insurance, as well on Ellen Roseman's site's comment, the financial watchdog, rip off report.com reports, & various other online sources...

  I was concerned that if we pursued this in small claims court, that we might be hurting others who were similarly taken, but did not have the ability to defend themselves...I am concerned that if we get a refund, through all of our hard work, that others will not also get a refund...I am aware that once we get a refund, if we do, that we might psychologically let it all go by- but others may not have been successful...

  What do you think? Do you think we could have success in a class action pursuit? Not even sure if TD Insurance, the issuer, should be the one named, or perhaps BMO, because they now own the underwriter AIG Canada's holdings? Or just sue everybody in Canada who sold balance protector insurance in Canada since 2001, & force them to refund all monies taken from unsuspecting victims/customers...I myself, Sari Grove, am self-employed & do not qualify for any benefits...As such, the contract should be void abinitio...(& the contract rescinded...) But who am I to quote Latin?

Tell us what you think... Sari Grove [email protected] 416-924-9725 Toronto, Ontario, M5R3M6...(I am a self-employed visual artist...grovecanada.ca if you'd like to verify what I do...My husband too...)

Sari Grove
10/6/2011 06:50:20 pm

The British have stated that one may not sell insurance at the same time as a credit card activation...Seven full days must be waited before insurance can be solicited...The reason is that the bundling of solicitation for insurance with your new or old credit card activation / reactivation is considered coercive, ie: you think you should say yes because you want your new credit card, your old credit card, you just want to get the phone conversation over with...

Sari
10/6/2011 07:07:58 pm

ex post facto : it means a law is retroactive, in Canada civil laws can be ex post facto, criminal laws no...It means if negative option billing was banned in Ontario in 2005, then if they screwed you in 2004, you might have a case retroactively...(use it as leverage- the fact that the practice was banned a year later- even if the law is not explicitly retroactive, it helps your case psychologically)...
void abinitio: or void from the beginning...If you were sold balance protection insurance & you are self-employed, you don't qualify for any of the benfits, except if you die...That is a piss poor policy & should be voided from the beginning of the contract because the contract was ridiculous...Like selling shoes to a man with no feet...Or whatever, pick your own metaphor...
rescission: rescind...Give your money back & all interest (usually 8%)...rescission means to put both parties to the position they were at, before the bad contract came into being...

Joseph
10/6/2011 07:29:30 pm

http://www.stikeman.com/cps/rde/xchg/se-en/hs.xsl/13645.htm Stikeman Elliot- 4 big insurance cases 2009-2010 in Canada...
*As such, the Court found that factual issues were raised with respect to a potential breach of the Ontario insurance scheme, which raised triable issues. The Court thus dismissed the motion for summary judgment.
*excerpts: 1)the bank act supersedes the ontario laws
*consumer protection act of 2002
*negligently misrepresented the nature and quality of insurance promoted at the plaintiff's branch. Further, the defendants alleged that RBC and RBC Insurance violated legal requirements regarding the provision of insurance products, as the plaintiffs had not obtained the applicable licence.
Comment: The bank did not only not have an insurance licence to sell insurance, but they did it badly...(if they had not sold the insurance badly, ie: misrepresented the insurance policy, then no one would have complained!!!- even though they don't have a licence...)

Joseph Grove
10/6/2011 08:04:47 pm

TD Visa said I could claim the death benefit on balance protection insurance...because I said as a self-employed person I did not qualify for any benefits like job loss or disability...(nice of them at TD Visa to say 'well I could die'...)...But credit card law in Canada does not force the surviving relatives of the dead person with a credit card balance owing, to have to pay off the outstanding balance...So you don't need a special policy to protect your loved ones from being burdened from your credit card debt if you die...Scam...This balance protection insurance is a scam...A useless policy for a self-employed person, & completely unnecessary, even if you died...

GroveCanada
10/6/2011 08:50:09 pm

http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/warranty-law/Consumer-Law-Warranty-FAQ.html (this link is about the Warranty Act)

(the excerpt is from Stikeman Elliot's website- the new 4 cases from end of 2009 in Insurance in Canada- a great read btw!( a law firm in Canada, U.S., & Australia)
excerpt: The decision in Brick case can be distinguished with that of Association pour la protection des automobilistes inc. c. Toyota Canada inc., 2008 QCCA 761. While the Quebec Court of Appeal in Toyota also rejected the notion that the extended warranty offered could be classified as "insurance", in reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal focused somewhat on the characteristics of the party offering the warranty. According to the Court of Appeal, a contract is a warranty if it (i) warrants against manufacturing defects only; (ii) is simply an accessory to the contract of sale; and

SALIENT POINT IS BELOW:
(iii) is offered by someone with an economic interest in the contract of sale such as the seller or manufacturer.


Considering the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal found that the extended plan was a warranty, as it (i) was offered by a subsidiary of the manufacturer in the context of a purchase of a new vehicle from an authorized dealer; (ii) was titled "Mechanical Protection Continuation Agreement for New Toyota Vehicle" and described as an extension of the manufacturer's warranty; (iii) essentially provided for only the repair of the vehicle if there was a defect; (iv) was subsidiary to the basic warranty; (v) was offered by a party that was not an insurer but rather a merchant under the Consumer Protection Act (Quebec); and (vi) provided that it was not intended to be insurance and that, if it was held to be insurance, the respondent was replaced by an insurer.


*such warranties could presumably be offered by parties unrelated to the manufacturer of the merchandise to which the warranty applies.

OK...If TD Visa is selling insurance on its own product, the credit card, because it is worried that with TDs high interest rates that people won't be able to pay for this PRODUCT, the credit card, then they have a vested interest in the product...Thus, this is sort of like a warranty on money...As such, it may also be subject to the Warranty Act...Laws governing the Warranty Act...neat eh?

GroveOntario
10/6/2011 09:13:05 pm

http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php/topic,31972.0.html Conversation about Canadian laws, Warranty Act (U.S.), British case law being applicable to Canada, American precedent law being used in Ontario courts...Also,

* What you are describing is a practice called "tied selling" which is considered anti-competitive and as such, is a violation of the Canadian Competition Act.*
*Canadian Equivalent to U.S. Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act* (Consumer Protection Act of 2002 or 2007)...
*There has been plenty of motor vehicle personal injury liablity suits settled in Ontario courts based on judgements in New York State. American case laws have the same origin as Canadian law and many are older.*
*http://tug.lib.uwaterloo.ca/gp/dl_ontario.html *proof that American case law can be accepted in Canada...
*(some*
Transport Canada safety recall (that legislation is a carbon copy of US legislation)*


Conclusion: One can apply the Warranty Act (U.S.) & The Canadian Competition Act (violation occurred due to "tied selling") in reference to suing the balance protection insurance underwriters...or overwriters, in this case, TD Insurance...(& other banks in Canada too)...Also the Consumer Act of 2007...(Canadian)...

GroveToronto
10/6/2011 09:45:42 pm

http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/warranties/undermag.htm
Law about the Warranty Act(U.S.)/Consumer Protection Act(Canada)
*oral warranties are not valid*
*As a warrantor or a seller, you must ensure that warranties are available where your warranted consumer products are sold so that consumers can read them before buying.*
*What the Magnuson-Moss Act
Does Not Allow
There are three prohibitions under the Magnuson-Moss Act. They involve implied warranties, so-called "tie-in sales" provisions, and deceptive or misleading warranty terms.*
*But, regardless of whether you warrant the products you sell, as a seller, you must give your customers copies of any written warranties from product manufacturers.*(Comment: since credit cards are already insured against the person dying & leaving a balance owing, that written information must be given to the client, though it is a manufacturer warranty not a retailer warranty...It means, if you got this in writing, that you would know that you don't need an "extra" insurance plan to protect your husband from credit card debt (yours) if you die...)*
*"Tie-In Sales" Provisions
Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.* Comment: selling you insurance after selling you a credit card...from the same company...ie: TD Visa, TD Bank, TD Insurance...sold you a credit card, sold you a bank account, sold you balance protection insurance- these, if sold together, say in one phone conversation, are three different products, if sold together, violates the Canadian Competition Act as a "tie-in" sale...*
*Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.* Comment: if Td visa wanted to tie-in the sale of balance protection insurance, they would have had to ask for a waiver of the tie-in sale law in the Canadian Competition Act...(which they didn't)...*
*Deceptive Warranty Terms
Obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms. You cannot offer a warranty that appears to provide coverage but, in fact, provides none. For example, a warranty covering only "moving parts" on an electronic product that has no moving parts would be deceptive and unlawful. Similarly, a warranty that promised service that the warrantor had no intention of providing or could not provide would be deceptive and unlawful.*Comment: offering insurance to a self-employed person when they cannot be covered...an abstract example...*more specific then: selling insurance but nobody has been able to file a claim or get any money...(nobody can get money back even if they did supposedly qualify...)*(check how many claims have been paid in Canada on balance protection insurance between how much money was taken in on premiums...*
*Consumer Lawsuits
The Act makes it easier for purchasers to sue for breach of warranty by making breach of warranty a violation of federal law, and by allowing consumers to recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This means that if you lose a lawsuit for breach of either a written or an implied warranty, you may have to pay the customer's costs for bringing the suit, including lawyer's fees.* Comment: the bloody thieves have to pay your legal fees too...*
*Because of the stringent federal jurisdictional requirements under the Act, most Magnuson-Moss lawsuits are brought in state court. However, major cases involving many consumers can be brought in federal court as class action suits under the Act.* Comment: one is provincial court & one is the whole Canada court...not sure about municipal ie: small claims court-though if they don't respond if you do file in small claims, the judge can award you a win based on they didn't answer in time...But then you need a bailiff to get the legal fees back 'cause they don't want to pay that part- though you will get your refund money...*
*the Better Business Bureau,* The BBB complaint thing sort of helped, but when the bank answered & said they can't discuss to third parties like the BBB & required me to write a written authorization to let them talk to the BBB, I didn't bother...Comment: too much bullshit for me...The BBB was a little slack in letting them off so easy in this stupid way...But the file of complaint is online which is nice...& I was wordy...go figure...*
* the FTC's Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule


Comments are closed.