47063
38249

$866K in crash damages

$866K in crash damages

Postby LolaB » Nov 8th, 2017, 11:43 am

So there goes the insurance increase for the rest of us... a reckless person is rewarded with a huge amount of money for not wearing a seatbelt. If she wasn't able to travel the distance with her blood cloths she clearly shouldn't be in that vehicle or chose to travel in a larger van with plenty of space, or use her brain and stop the car every 30-45 minutes to stretch and walk around as people with blood cloths do ...But she chose to be wrong and collects money now.

Vehicle insurance goes hand in hand with our so ever wrong legal system to reward those who cause trouble and do not follow any rules.

If you are an honest driver having a deer jumping front of you so your first reaction is to save your life rather than hitting an animal (less than a split second decision) and you swerve the car that eventually rolls over because of the gravel on the side of road, ICBC dismisses your case because you should have hit that deer to be covered! Lakatos got lots of time to re-think her decision when unbuckling her seatbelt (she was possibly never buckled up) but only 20% was deducted for that insanity. Where is the justice in BC? Literally nowhere....

2 people like this post.
LolaB
 
Posts: 21
Likes: 26 posts
Liked in: 30 posts
Joined: Jul 24th, 2014, 10:38 pm

Re: $866K in crash damages

Postby Fancy » Nov 8th, 2017, 11:48 am

User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 43030
Likes: 933 posts
Liked in: 4833 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 5:23 pm

Re: $866K in crash damages

Postby Hassel99 » Nov 8th, 2017, 12:16 pm

LolaB wrote:So there goes the insurance increase for the rest of us... a reckless person is rewarded with a huge amount of money for not wearing a seatbelt. If she wasn't able to travel the distance with her blood cloths she clearly shouldn't be in that vehicle or chose to travel in a larger van with plenty of space, or use her brain and stop the car every 30-45 minutes to stretch and walk around as people with blood cloths do ...But she chose to be wrong and collects money now.

Vehicle insurance goes hand in hand with our so ever wrong legal system to reward those who cause trouble and do not follow any rules.

If you are an honest driver having a deer jumping front of you so your first reaction is to save your life rather than hitting an animal (less than a split second decision) and you swerve the car that eventually rolls over because of the gravel on the side of road, ICBC dismisses your case because you should have hit that deer to be covered! Lakatos got lots of time to re-think her decision when unbuckling her seatbelt (she was possibly never buckled up) but only 20% was deducted for that insanity. Where is the justice in BC? Literally nowhere....


The other driver crossed the centerline. This is exactly how insurance should work. Your lack of empathy is unfortunately.

Your second paragraph highlights YOUR lack of understanding about coverage. Impact with a deer is comprehensive claim, single vehicle accident is a collision as defined by the motor vehicle act.. In your example you are suggesting a driver carries comprehensive coverage without collision? I call BS.
User avatar
Hassel99
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3092
Likes: 845 posts
Liked in: 2480 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 8:31 am

Re: $866K in crash damages

Postby jason500 » Nov 8th, 2017, 12:20 pm

You're wrong on many accords, but a lot of that is opinion based as well. But as stated above, driver crossed the center line and that IS exactly what insurance is for and how it works.

Where you are incorrect, ICBC does not "dismiss" a case because you swerved away from a deer. All basic insurance comes with accident benefits, regardless of any optional insurance purchased. If you were to hit the deer (or the deer hit you, contrary to popular belief, it doesn't matter) comprehensive coverage would allow you to claim for damages to your vehicle. If you swerve and hit something that isn't an animal, collision coverage would be necessary to pay for damages to your vehicle. Accident benefits would be included regardless.

2 people like this post.
jason500
 
Posts: 13
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 16 posts
Joined: Feb 26th, 2010, 5:26 pm

Re: $866K in crash damages

Postby MAPearce » Nov 8th, 2017, 12:30 pm

I wonder how much the total cost of the settlement is ?

Ya know , like how much ICBC played their lawyers to defend against paying such a large settlement .
I payed attention in High school....But not to what they were trying to teach me..

voice of reason likes this post.
User avatar
MAPearce
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10171
Likes: 1214 posts
Liked in: 3167 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2009, 5:15 pm

Re: $866K in crash damages

Postby StraitTalk » Nov 8th, 2017, 8:38 pm

The article points out that the other drive is liable for 400+k in damages... does that mean his insurance ie. ICBC or him?
User avatar
StraitTalk
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3547
Likes: 66 posts
Liked in: 266 posts
Joined: May 12th, 2009, 3:54 pm


Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: khutchi, stuart777 and 15 guests