On November 23, Bonnie Martin, Business Development Representative at Intergroupe, contacted Insurance Journal to express her opposition to Bill 96, which amends the Charter of the French Language.
Martin spoke to Insurance Journal in December, together with Intergroupe President Bernard Laporte.
“The contract must be written in French, and if the parties wish, they can accept the English version. And insurance is about contracts. It’s our life, literally. And word for word is very important. As soon as we talk about contracts, we have to be able to make our own decisions independently,” she explains.
Brokers often have trouble finding the right policy, she continues. “Even for good cases where there have never been any claims, and for clients that have been with the same insurer for 20 years,” Martin says.
Bernard Laporte points out that often, an insurer decides to stop covering a particular risk, forcing the broker to shop around. “We then need to help the client find another capacity, and that’s the big problem. In all multilingual countries, there are major limitations and significant additional costs,” he says.
Word-for-word is normally fairly standard for the classic large risks, and underwriters in London have translated such policies. For specialty risks, however, such as many commercial lines policies, policies are not translated. “The policy will cost more. We have to tell our clients to accept the English text, and usually they do,” Laporte adds.
Foreign insurers are not going to translate a policy for a single risk, Laporte continues. “They’re not going to translate three pages of a very technical policy word-for-word, and then have it analyzed by legal specialists, it’s going to cost a fortune for a single policy.”
“We also have brokers who are English-speaking and whose clients are English-speaking, so we have to give them policies in English. We are already limited by the number of insurers and this is one more constraint,” says the Intergroupe president.
Bonnie Martin tells the story of a contract she just renewed with the insurer AIG. “The U.S. subsidiary had to take over, because the specialties are there. The contract was drawn up manually, because it was a very specific risk. So, asking them to write it in French…for one client? It was hard enough to get that guarantee,” says Bonnie Martin.
Even if the insurer agrees to provide a French version, the wording specifies that in the event of a dispute, the original text (in English) takes precedence. “The underwriter writes its wording according to the risk it perceives. If their intention involves something very specific, it really needs to be applied in law, not to harm the insured, but so that the insurer is able to price the risk accordingly and maintain profitability,” she adds.
Risk of closure
“It’s the broker’s job to advise the client well and explain the policy, the limitations, but at the end of the day, you’re stuck with the offer you have. The client doesn’t end up with less coverage than they thought they had. It’s really a matter of being able to insure them and allow them to continue their business,” Bonnie Martin explains.
Late policy renewals or overly high premium hikes have forced some companies to close, while others have seen their growth hindered, Marin continues. “It’s not like we had a lot of options with local insurers,” she says.
Bill 96 “changes the way we approach contracts and legal services, contractual relationships, relationships between business and government,” says Colin Standish, president of the Task Force on Linguistic Policy, adding that the proposed changes will make it harder to understand contracts.
“I would say that in 95 per cent of the cases, the policies are in French and we can provide them. Also, for large known risks in personal lines and commercial lines we can provide them in English and in French. But for policies that are a little more delicate, a little more precise, it’s going to be more complicated,” says Bernard Laporte.
Claims
Disputes over policy interpretation can be sparked by a claim linked to a loss. “I have seen a situation where someone asked me to cancel one of the coverages in the policy. At the time of the claim, he denied having asked to cancel the coverage. At that point, you had to prove that the client had accepted the contract,” explains Bonnie Martin.
For some segments, such as insurance that covers restaurant owners or roofers, there is very little competition and even fewer local insurers, she points out.
Bernard Laporte confirms the potential for increased litigation at the claims stage. “An English-speaking person who is presented with a policy in French will say, ‘I didn’t understand that was the policy. I thought I was covered for this or that. You didn’t give me the opportunity to understand the contract in my language…’,” he says.
Inspection powers
Martin is a member of the lobby group Task Force on Linguistic Policy.Both she and Task Force president Colin Standish are particularly concerned about the increased powers of OQLF inspectors, who are granted search and seizure powers under Bill 96.
Sections 166 to 177 of the Charter have been rewritten. The titles are evocative: “Complaints, Disclosures, Protection Measures, Inspections, Investigations and Remedial Measures.”
Section 107 of Bill 96 creates a chapter by introducing provisions dealing with complaints, disclosures and protection measures. Seven new complaint provisions will become sections 165.15 to 165.21 of the Charter.
In terms of inspections and investigations, section 174 already allowed OQLF inspectors to enter any place open to the public during business hours, to examine any product or document, make copies, and require any relevant information.
Bill 96 stipulates that the inspector may take photographs of the premises. The third paragraph specifies that the person conducting the inspection may “cause any person present who has access to any computer, equipment or other thing that is on the premises to use it to access data contained in an electronic device, computer system or other medium or to verify, examine, process, copy or print out such data.”
The last paragraph of the amended section 174 states that “any person who has custody, possession or control of documents referred to in this section must communicate them to the person making an inspection and facilitate their examination by that person.”
