Incorrect principal operator & denial of insurance

[LongHaul]

The article below from The Globe and Mail is disturbing about the current state of our civil justice system. This time it is a judge expressing frustration about a justice system that is increasingly only open for use by the rich. The judge refers to a case in Ontario as an example of the costs for a 10 day trial but emphasizes this is a national problem. The average person better hope they will never be in a situation where they have to take a corporation to court.

For example assume one is denied insurance coverage for a claim. Even if a lawyer advises that the denial will not stand up in court one may have to suck it up and let it go when the costs and years required to get in front of a judge are calculated.

As an alternative one could take it to Small Claims court if the case fits the criteria for Small Claims Court. The Small Claims Court is much more reasonable in cost and time to required to hear a case.
However my understanding is one could win in Small Claims court and the deep pockets corporation could then appeal the case into the expensive higher courts. Do not know what this would mean in cost to one who is dragged into a higher court on an appeal after winning in Small Claims. One could try representing themselves although have heard the procedures and paperwork for the higher courts are so challenging even experienced lawyers have made mistakes and damaged their cases.

This affects small business also. Commerce depends on fair play and recourse to the justice system when this trust is broken. Many small businesses could not afford the current costs to access the court system as a last recourse unless it can be heard in Small Claims Court.

Unfortunately this problem is only going to be fixed is when the politicians sense the public is aware of the problem, are finally getting angry and there are votes at stake.

The corporation most of us in BC will deal with and has the potential for a dispute if one isn't careful or due to unfortunate circumstances is ICBC. The ICBC website lists the following steps if one wishes to dispute a denial of insurance.

(1): Talk to your adjuster.

(2): Talk to your adjustor's manager.

(3): Dispute through the courts.

The footnote for number 3 is upfront in saying “It could take as long as two years or more before your case goes to court.” Could be even more upfront by adding “One may find the costs to go to court will be unaffordable.” The link to this section follows:
http://www.icbc.com/claims/feedback/appeal_denials

The The Globe and Mail article from July 3, 2013 follows.

The Globe and Mail July 3, 2013


Ontario courts ‘only open to the rich’ Judge’s ruling describes ‘unacceptable failure’ of civil justice system, with legal fees exhausting defendants’ financial resources
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
JAMES BRADSHAW
................................................................
An Ontario judge has turned a routine decision into a scathing critique of the province’s justice system, warning its courts are increasingly “only open to the rich.”

Ontario Superior Court Justice D. M. Brown made his pointed commentary in a ruling last week on a preliminary matter in a lawsuit York University launched against former assistant vice-president accusing him of masterminding a $1.2-million fraud. The case is a year and a half old, accruing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, with no trial date in sight.

Justice Brown called the case a prime example of a national problem that has exasperated some of the country’s most senior judges, including Supreme Court of Canada chief justice Beverley McLachlin: More and more civil defendants, especially those of limited means, face the prospect of legal fees exhausting their financial resources before they even reach a trial.
“Such a state of affairs reflects an unacceptable failure on the part of our civil justice system,” Justice Brown wrote in his June 25 decision. At the root of the problem is a belief that “trials are bad” and “mediation will solve all problems,” which took hold in recent decades and sapped the will to move cases swiftly to trial, Justice Brown said.

“One cannot overstate the oppressive effect on judicial morale of the endless waves of cases which seem to be going nowhere in a civil justice system that is sinking,” he wrote. “Why try to be creative when the system, with a life of its own, grinds relentlessly on and downward?”

Ontario’s woes are common in other provinces, especially in larger cities. “It’s definitely a national problem,” said Melina Buckley, a Vancouver lawyer who chairs the Canadian Bar Association’s committee on access to justice. Canada scores poorly on access to civil justice, ranking ninth out of 16 North American and Western European nations and 13th among the world’s high-income countries, just ahead of Estonia, according to the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index for 2012-13.

Lengthy legal cases become untenable as defendants remortgage their homes and deplete their savings to pay mounting costs. Lawyers for Mr. xxxxxx, his daughter and her mother (who are co-defendants) bill between $250 and $850 per hour, meaning a 10-day trial with preparation time could cost them $425,000.

Speculating that the defendants’ final legal bills might top $800,000, Justice Brown worries they could run out of money before a trial wraps up. “If we have reached the point where $800,000 cannot buy you a defence to a $1.2-million fraud claim, then we may as well throw up our collective hands and concede that our public courts have failed and are now only open to the rich,” he writes.

[my5cents]

The injustice you talk about with respect to ICBC hinges on, first that a claim was wrongly denied, the adjuster's manager then supports the wrongly denied claim and the claim is worth over $10,000 (the limit for small claims).

Most law suits against ICBC involve ICBC representing their insured, who is being sued by an injured party. Those cases are mostly handled by lawyers working for the injured party on a pre-agreed contingency percentage. So the injured party pays zip up front.

In the case sited in the article a person is being sued for fraud, which is a long way from an innocent motorist being wrongly denied coverage.

[LongHaul]

Did some searching for information on what would be ball park costs to take ICBC to court for a Denial of Insurance. Ex: ICBC denies coverage as they believe the Principal Operator declared is incorrect. Based on my interpretation of various postings found the calculation of legal costs can be complex and influenced by Offers to Settle before going to trial. This was a surprise to me.

Offers to Settle have to be considered very carefully as they can put one in in a risky situation. If ICBC makes an Offer to Settle and the Plaintiff (person taking ICBC to court) rejects it the Plaintiff can be charged with costs and disbursements of the Defendant (ICBC) from the date that the formal Offer to Settle was delivered. In an hypothetical example shown the Plaintiff wins the case, is awarded a settlement but because the Plaintiff rejected ICBC's Offer to Settle forcing a trial it netted out with the Plaintiff owing ICBC a large sum of money.

The Plaintiff can also make an Offer to Settle which could then affect the costs charged to the Defendant although with ICBC's deep pockets don't think this will be much of a concern. Am guessing the purpose of this wrinkle is to encourage out of court settlements even though in some situations it could lead to what seems to be bizarre results? The are some caveats on these Offers to Settle. Anyway a potential topic for another post when time permits.

That the majority of ICBC cases are injury cases and the lawyers are paid by contingency fees is correct. The web sites of many lawyers state one pays nothing until the injury case is settled and then the lawyer will take a percentage. The % varies, a number mentioned often is 30%. For a injury award of say $500,000 the lawyer could get 30% or $150,000. The lawyer will also charge for any disbursements such as copying, long distance calls, cost of medical experts not paid for as part of the award. If the Plaintiff and ICBC disagree on the award for payment of disbursements this can lead to additional legal costs and disbursements.

If it's a Denial of Insurance then the Plaintiff will probably be on the hourly rate which usually seems to be $150 to $200 per hour. The estimated cost posted on a lawyer's web site for a reasonably complex trial lasting 5 days in the Supreme Court is in the neighbourhood of at least $50,000.

The good news is checking the web site for the BC Small Claims Court the claim limit is less than $25,000. Recall this used to be $10,000.

However as per the following article from the web site of Mussio Law “the Government has placed a rule that in Small Claims Court you cannot seek a declaration so ICBC often tries to stymie due process by arguing that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to consider the insurance breach issue because it’s a declaration of insurance.” Not clear to me what this means but implies ICBC could potentially argue a case cannot be heard in Small Claims Court even though the claim is less than $25,000.

The article by Mussio Law discussing what to consider before taking ICBC to court is quite readable although a bit of a downer if one has to take ICBC to court for an incorrect Denial of Insurance. Note: One has only one year in which to do this. Have inserted the article posted by Mussio Law below.

The starting point is ICBC has complete control as to the decision on insurance coverage. They do not have to consider the testimony of the driver in their decision. They can use a healthy level of skepticism and conjecture to make their decision without any recourse if they make the wrong decision. Once ICBC makes the decision, the decision is final unless you dispute it. That is, you need to take positive steps to suing ICBC in either small claims court or Supreme Court for insurance coverage. You must do so within a year of the denial. If you do not take positive steps, ICBC’s decision is final and any damages flowing out of their decision will be your responsibility.

Depending on the potential exposure, you have to make a decision whether you want to sue ICBC or simply accept their decision.

For example, if it is a single vehicle accident than the loss to the driver/ owner is there is no coverage for the vehicle damage. In that instance, it may not be worth the legal costs and the general hassle of pursuing ICBC for insurance coverage.

However, if the driver caused an accident to another vehicle then ICBC will be looking to the driver/owner to pay back any damages paid to the other vehicle and its occupants, whether it is a vehicle damage claim or an injury claim. In some instances, the claim by ICBC can be very large, often in the hundred thousand dollar plus range. In this type of situation, it may well be worth pursuing ICBC for insurance coverage because the alternative is to pay them back a very large sum of money.

There is no question that when you are faced with the breach situation and you need to hire a lawyer it’s going to be an expensive endeavor. To make matters worse, the full cost of a lawyer is not something you can claim back from ICBC even if you win. Therefore, it’s a matter of a costbenefit analysis as to whether or not you want to involve a lawyer.

If that was not enough, the Government has placed a rule that in Small Claims Court you cannot seek a declaration so ICBC often tries to stymie due process by arguing that the Small Claims Court has no jurisdiction to consider the insurance breach issue because it’s a declaration of insurance. ICBC tries to force the case to be heard in Supreme Court which necessitates the use of a lawyer and the potential risk of having to pay a portion of ICBC’s legal fees and all their expenses if you lose the case.

These breach cases are also very hard fought by ICBC and they seldom back down even if they are flat-out wrong because they know, due to expense of a lawyer, they have the upper hand.

Ultimately, you need to do a cost-benefit analysis when faced with a breach situation. If the loss is not large, you may wish to walk away from the claim for insurance. If the potential personal financial exposure is very high, especially when there is an injury in the other vehicle, ignoring the breach would be a very bad idea.

The link to the article is: http://www.mussiolaw.com/suing-icbc-for-insurance-coverage

[LongHaul]

This is an unusual case with a bit of a twist about a denial of insurance due to an incorrect Principal Operator (PO). It does bring out a factor that may be useful if one has a PO dispute with ICBC.

An attempt to summarize the case document follows.

A vehicle was purchased with the owner planning to use it to give his grandson driving lessons. A three month term of insurance was purchased.

The grandfather drove the car until the three month term of insurance expired. The car was put in storage. While the car was in storage modifications were made which consisted of adding large chrome wheels, low profile tires and a strip of lights below the dashboard.

Later in the year the car was brought out of storage and insurance renewed for a three month term with the grandfather again declared as the PO. The grandson had obtained his learner's permit the day before. At the time of renewal the grandfather asked the insurance agent if using the vehicle to teach his grandson to drive would affect declaring himself as the principal operator. The agent explained to him it would not as long as he operated the vehicle the majority of time.

The grandfather drove the car a couple of times and on the second day after the insurance renewal took his grandson for a driving lesson. During the lesson with the grandson driving they were involved in an accident and the car was written off. ICBC noted the modifications to the car were more likely done for the benefit of the teenage grandson than the grandfather. The adjustor's interview with the grandfather who brought his son and grandson made things worse. The son acted as a translator as needed. This resulted in a very messy interview and a number of inconsistencies.

The result was ICBC denied coverage stating an incorrect PO had been declared. This was based on the modifications to the car and the interview which led ICBC to believe over the insurance term the grandson would become the PO.

The grandfather took ICBC to Small Claims Court and lost. This judge focused on the modifications to the car and the inconsistencies from the interview in making his decision. The grandfather next appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Have to give him credit for hanging in there, out of pocket legal costs must have been more then the value of the car.

The Supreme Court took a different approach to the case. The Supreme Court Judge agreed with the Small Claims Judge on his application of the law based on the evidence provided from the interview and the vehicle modifications but stated an overriding factor had been missed. The factor that had been missed was:

“Evidence of ownership, intended ownership or even intended use at some indeterminate time in the future is not determinative of the issue of who was the principal operator of the vehicle during the term of the insurance.  That determination could only be established by ICBC after a period of time had elapsed in the term.”

Basically (my interpretation) this seems to say ICBC can not deny coverage based on predicting the future. The accident happened two days into the insurance term which was not enough time to establish that the PO was going to be different from what was declared.

The judge ordered ICBC to grant coverage for the claim. Time to process the case- almost two years.

The link to the case is

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/13/2007bcsc1307.htm

Unfortunately predicting the future when declaring the Principal Operator can work against the vehicle owner if the future does not unfold as predicted. There is a case in this thread on September 24, 2012 page 4 which shows this. In this case the owner planned to loan his jeep to his companion while her ICBC claim was being processed. This was discussed with his insurance agent at time of renewal who did not see any problem. The owner thinking this would be for a short time declared himself as the PO of the jeep. However processing of his companion's claim by ICBC took much longer than forecast. A claim involving his jeep occurred while his companion was still using the vehicle to get to and from work. ICBC denied coverage stating the declared PO was incorrect.

The owner took ICBC to court. This case shows the various factors the court considers when deciding if an incorrect PO should result in a denial of coverage. Fortunately the owner was using or had control of the jeep when his companion was not using it for work which helped his case. After reviewing all the factors the judge ordered ICBC to grant the owner coverage for his claim.

The takeaway from these cases seems to be when a vehicle has multiple drivers ensure its use or modifications will not raise doubts with ICBC about the declared PO. The declared PO may be perfectly correct but if there are things that cause ICBC to have doubts it could get ugly and costly in the event of a claim.

[LongHaul]

This is another case where modifications to a vehicle caused a Principal Operator (PO) issue with ICBC when a claim was submitted. It seems to show ICBC can deny coverage even if the supporting evidence is circumstantial and may not be to the standard that a court requires to support a denial of insurance.

Will try doing an abbreviated summary of the case.

The ICBC claim was for repairs to the owner's vehicle's paint and finish when it was vandalized. The vehicle was owned by a middle aged mother (claimant) who had a son and daughter. The son, daughter and her husband sometimes drove the vehicle in addition to herself.

Thought comes to mind she should be confident none of these other drivers will have a foolish spell leading to a denial of insurance if one of them has an accident with her vehicle. As the registered owner she could get a very expensive invoice from ICBC charging her with what ICBC had to pay out to settle the accident.

The adjuster noted the vehicle had been upgraded with the addition of a fancy grill, new tires, rims and a boom box with two speakers. When questioned about the modifications the adjuster was told the claimant's husband and son had installed the additions.

The adjuster was of the opinion no older person would have effected these changes to a vehicle and therefore conducted further interviews. In an interview with the son the adjuster noted the son used the work “my” when referring to the vehicle.

The interview with the mother was complicated by her limited knowledge of English. The mother asked if she could bring in her daughter to assist. She stated the adjuster said her command of English was sufficient and this was not necessary. The adjuster denied this in court saying a request for translation assistance had not been made. Regardless the interview was conducted without any assistance from a translator. The adjuster asked if her son took Public Transport to school. Her answer was he did not.

Based on these inconsistencies ICBC denied coverage claiming the son must be the principal operator and the mother had been declared as the PO save money on the cost of insurance.

The amount of the claim allowed the mother to take ICBC to Small Claims Court avoiding the very costly Supreme Court.

The Small Claims Judge was not impressed with the evidence ICBC presented to support the denial of insurance. He noted the use of the word “my” is not very conclusive. It is not uncommon for a son or daughter to use the word “my” to refer to a family item they also use. Example “my house” even though the house not owned by them.

The judge commented it is not uncommon for middle aged owners to add modifications to their vehicles or to enjoy an upgrade to the stereo system. IMHO another possible reason would be if the son was borrowing the vehicle to take out a girlfriend. He may have felt uncomfortable showing up with a bland stock vehicle if his friends had installed fancy additions to their vehicles.

The judge had a number of concerns about how ICBC conducted their interview with the mother. One key item was the mother stating in the interview that her son did not take Public Transit to school. On the stand In court it became obvious she did not understand what Public Transit meant. When the question was changed to ask if her son took the bus to school she answered yes he takes the bus.

Going by precedent cases the judge stated as the mother is being accused of fraud in the declaration of the PO a higher level of proof is required.

“the judge must determine whether the evidence is clear and cogent enough to more than just tilt the scales.  The more serious the allegation and its consequences, the greater the degree of proof required.”

The judge stated ICBC did not produce any information that would allow him to determine who the PO was let alone find on any standard that the claimant committed the alleged wrong doing.

Based on the above the judge's ruling was to overturn ICBC's denial of insurance.

“I therefore grant judgement for the claimant and grant to the claimant liberty to bring the matter back before me for determination of damages if the parties are unable to agree on same.”

The link to the case follows:

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments.php?link=http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/

Enter in the Search, the docket number:
S56517

[The Rooster]

Come on , supporting a union NDP Insurance business that is a monopoly is just like kicking yourself in the face .ICBC is not socialist it is Putin-ish

[LongHaul]

Interesting story on CTV Tuesday May 6, 2014 about a senior having her car partly fall into a sinkhole when the pavement opened up while parking her car. The supermarket chain and Property Manager of the supermarket's parking lot initially refused to accept any responsibility for damages to her vehicle.

ICBC was contacted and the vehicle owner eventually got a letter stating ICBC was assigning 100% fault to her as there wasn't any other vehicle involved.

This seems unusual as in the past ICBC has gone after whoever was responsible maintaining a road or street. One example of this is ICBC going after the firm responsible for maintaining a section of the Coquihalla when pot holes damaged a number of vehicles during the winter of 2013. Wonder why ICBC didn't go after the company responsible for the parking lot in this case?

Could speculate it might be because it was easier and more cost effective to assign fault to the vehicle owner?? Going after the large grocery chain could result in an expensive court case that could go on for years.

As per a couple of precedent court cases described in a post in this thread March 5, 2013 10:52PM her chances of overturning ICBC's assignment of fault in court would seem to be excellent. However it would have to be done in Small Claims Court to make financial sense. If it had to be heard in a higher court the cost to win the case would probably be much more than than cancelling the ICBC claim and paying for the repairs herself.

Fortunately after CTV News got involved the supermarket chain accepted responsibility and will cover the expenses of the vehicle owner. Article didn't state if ICBC then removed the assignment of fault to her.

The CTV news article and link follow.

“Lynda Steele and Sandra Hermiston, CTV Vancouver
Published Tuesday, May 6, 2014 6:00AM PDT
Last Updated Tuesday, May 6, 2014 7:43PM PDT

A Metro Vancouver senior is taking on Superstore after her car fell into a sinkhole in one of the grocery giant’s parking lots.
June L., 82, was pulling up to a Coquitlam Superstore in January when suddenly the pavement opened up beneath her, lifting her rear tires right off the ground. L could not believe what had happened.
"There was my whole front tire in that hole, and I thought, uh oh," she said. 

First June called a tow truck, then ICBC. 
Loblaws, the owner of Superstore made sure she was OK, but initially denied responsibility. Shortly after the incident, June says she received a letter that said she was 100 per cent at fault.  ICBC claimed June was responsible because no other vehicle was involved. 

The 82-year old pensioner was out nearly $500 in combined deductible and rental car costs. She also stood to lose her safe driving record.

June's son was angry the grocery giant wouldn't cover his mother's costs.
"I think they were worried about the liability with a little old lady might have some injuries, and I just don't think they wanted to accept that," said Paul L.

Loblaws declined CTV News’ request for an interview, but the store's property manager, Choices Properties REIT, emailed to say, "The matter is currently with the insurance adjusters.  While we are staying close to the situation in an effort to help expedite the claim, there is nothing more that we can say on this topic."

But days after CTV News got involved, the property manager agreed to cover June's expenses, and accept responsibility for the sinkhole.

“It's just unfortunate that it had to get to that, that you guys had to get involved before anybody was going to do anything and we're very grateful that you did,” said Paul. 

The sinkhole has now been filled in, and a row of parking stalls has been roped off to traffic. But the Ls are worried about the overall safety of this Coquitlam parking lot.

Choices Properties tells CTV News that, "We have plans for maintenance and repairs to the current parking lot…within the next year…and we are waiting for a full site assessment from our consultants."

That's not good enough for Paul L.
“The parking lot is horrendous and an accident has happened so you think they might get to it right away and say let's check this out now,” he said. “

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/senior-told-to-pay-up-after-car-falls-into-parking-lot-sinkhole-1.1807434

[my5cents]

Yes, interesting, LongHawl, I saw and took note of the "Parking Lot Sink Hole" item on CTV news last night as well.

When a car hits something that should not be on a roadway, such as a rock slide etc, it is a collision claim. It gets "greyer" when the hazard that damages a vehicle is a pothole, as you mentioned on the Coquihalla Hwy. I also remember a very deep pothole on Harvey in Kelowna a number of years ago, that was damaging vehicles. Never did hear what happened there.

I think without payment from the city or the highway maintenance company, ICBC is left with a collision claim.

Now, having said all that.... What if one drives in a parking lot, the surface appears "normal" and one of the wheels of the vehicle sinks through the surface.

The test is liability. Was the maintainer of the lot negligent in any way ? "knew, or ought to have known that the ground below the blacktop surface had failed and could......"

I think as the insurance company for this lady, ICBC should have gone after the store. They as her insurance company have a duty, just like they do if she was hit by another car.

The normal procedure would be ICBC processes the claim as a collision, subject to a deductible and then they approach the store, the store either admits liability or they point to the contractor that built the parking lot. It would be a VERY EXPENSIVE investigation and (perhaps) court case.

Now for any other vehicle that subsequently sinks through the blacktop, they have a great case against the store, or whoever maintains the lot, because after this lady went through the blacktop they now "knew or ought to have known..." (ie, liability is clear).

But as we've discussed before, most people are very ignorant of the inner workings of auto insurance. The classic is the person driving on a roadway that is covered in ice, it is "greased lightning", the common misconception is that if you loose control, you are not at fault. But, you are.

It gets worse when we are talking about different zones on one highway. One maintenance company is responsible up to XYZ intersection, then another company takes over and we go from "wet and safe for near speed limit travel" to "hard to walk on". We all know who really is liable in that case, but it will be the driver (collision claim).

[LoneWolf_53]

Face it people, ICBC isn't there to insure us as much as they're there to take our money, and do their utmost to find loopholes that give them a way out of any potential claims.

There's no other reason that the policies are written in such a convoluted fashion. Even clerks at the insurance offices can't figure out ICBC much of the time.

It's one of the biggest things that annoyed me, when I first purchased insurance in BC over 25yrs ago, because having come from Saskatchewan at the time, I was accustomed to my insurance covering me, regardless of how many km's away from home I was, where I was driving to and why, or whatever other stupid condition they put into play here in BC.

[my5cents]

Face it people, ICBC isn't there to insure us as much as they're there to take our money, and do their utmost to find loopholes that give them a way out of any potential claims.

I think you'd find that as long as you play by the rules, as they are laid out in the Ins Veh Act/Reg you won't have a problem.

Even, if for example, you drive your "pleasure use" vehicle daily to work. If you have an accident one evening on the way to a hockey game, ICBC will cover you even if they determine you were improperly insured for your to and from work. The principle being the breach must be material to he loss.

I don't think you'd find such leniency with private insurance.

For example private health travel insurance. You answer "never been treated for a heart condition" on your application. You break your leg in Hawaii and your claim is denied because at your last physical you were tested for a heart condition. In the fine print you learn that "treated" includes being "tested for".

There's no other reason that the policies are written in such a convoluted fashion. Even clerks at the insurance offices can't figure out ICBC much of the time.

It's one of the biggest things that annoyed me, when I first purchased insurance in BC over 25yrs ago, because having come from Saskatchewan at the time, I was accustomed to my insurance covering me, regardless of how many km's away from home I was, where I was driving to and why, or whatever other stupid condition they put into play here in BC.

The only km restriction ICBC policies have is distance to and from work, this is unlike some private insurance companies that want you to specify yearly distance travelled.
Again the only reason ICBC cares "where" you are driving is if you are driving to and from work

As for SGI, since you left they have an "optional no fault" system, where you either opt for the "standard" coverage, which is "no fault" or you pay extra and fall under the "tort" system (the system we have). So if some negligent driver smashes into your car and you are injured, in Saskatchewan unless you've paid extra for tort insurance, you can't sue for pain and suffering, you just receive wage loss and medical, like you'd get I you were hurt at work (WCB).

"Optional no fault" insurance coverage is less expensive than tort or "first party coverage" because it limits how much is paid out and eliminates much of the expensive litigation.

No system is perfect.

[delSol97]

There is a perfect system, they just refuse to adopt it.

Every driver should be required to have personal insurance.
The vehicle should just have to be registered and a storage policy.

Your personal insurance would cover you regardless of which vehicle you drive.

The current system is a cash grab that penalizes people who own multiple vehicles.

After all it's the drivers that cause accidents, not the vehicles (unless it's a GM).

[LongHaul]

my5cents » May 7, 2014, 1:18 pm wrote:

I think as the insurance company for this lady, ICBC should have gone after the store. They as her insurance company have a duty, just like they do if she was hit by another car.

Exactly.

The store which is part of a large corporation must have a comprehensive insurance policy that covers damage and injuries caused by a problem within their parking lots. Was thinking this should cover any costs ICBC charged the store that was above their deductible. However in this case the costs were quite modest, probably well below the deductible for the store's insurance policy. This store if they were a good community citizen should have covered these costs without the need for CTV to get involved.

The parking lot sinkhole may be caused by ground water. The store may want to check their insurance policy does not have a clause that states damage whose root cause is ground water is not covered. From what I recall some Calgary homeowners discovered this clause the hard way after the flood last year.

My knowledge of ICBC procedures in determining the allocation of fault is limited to mainly what have picked up in this thread and the cases. It seems the procedures can sometimes lead to a result that one's gut reaction is “This is just wrong”. Have wondered after the ICBC procedures have been completed is there a review committee who steps back and asks does the result make sense?

[my5cents]

There is a perfect system, they just refuse to adopt it.

Every driver should be required to have personal insurance.
The vehicle should just have to be registered and a storage policy.

Your personal insurance would cover you regardless of which vehicle you drive.

The current system is a cash grab that penalizes people who own multiple vehicles.

After all it's the drivers that cause accidents, not the vehicles (unless it's a GM).

I gather by storage policy you mean an own damage policy, that would cover the vehicle for, theft, fire, vandalism, and collision, whatever insurance is purchased ?

I think we have to agree that there are two elements to all insurance, private or government run. That is risk and quantum.

With a reduction in insurance for multiple vehicles, it can't be as simple as insurance for each vehicle and liability insurance for each driver, because different drivers pose different risks when operating vehicles.

If we designate drivers to vehicles, then a reduction can exist for multiple vehicles. BUT, if I get a discount because I own three vehicles and those vehicles can be operated by anyone, all three could be operated at the same time, perhaps even by individuals who have bad driving records.

If you say, "well then charge more for the individuals personal driving insurance ?", then how does the insurance company charge a correct premium for lessor or more expensive vehicles being operated by the driver ?

I agree with you that if, for example a person owns three vehicles, lets say a car, a truck and a motorcycle and he is the only driver, he is paying way too much.

The key is that he can't operate all three at the same time. As soon as the insurance company allows other drivers, the reduction in risk is gone, as should be the discount.

The reduction shouldn't be calculated on "volume" of vehicles, but the limitation of risk, ie, two vehicles parked while a third is being operated.

[my5cents]

Exactly.

The store which is part of a large corporation must have a comprehensive insurance policy that covers damage and injuries caused by a problem within their parking lots. Was thinking this should cover any costs ICBC charged the store that was above their deductible. However in this case the costs were quite modest, probably well below the deductible for the store's insurance policy. This store if they were a good community citizen should have covered these costs without the need for CTV to get involved...........................

As for the store's insurance, I would expect that would be liability insurance and depending on the circumstances, the store likely wasn't negligent and it might fall back to the contractor who completed the parking lot or even the geotechnical engineer who designed the lot, or whatever.

Likely, technically ICBC did nothing wrong, however they didn't go that extra mile for their insured, either.

[LoneWolf_53]

Likely, technically ICBC did nothing wrong, however they didn't go that extra mile for their insured, either.

Nor are they ever likely to!