Don't risk being a designated driver

[Sn0man]

My question is: if the vehicle had been insured by a private insurance company would the end result have been any different?

Probably, if for no other reason than bad press like this is bad for business.

Being a monopoly, ICBC can go about their shady business with relative impunity - where else in BC are people going to go for their mandatory insurance?

[kgcayenne]

On Monday, a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled in favour of the insurance firm because Felix was not covered by third party insurance. Unless she appeals and wins, she will receive nothing.

So, if she had paid extra for the optional insurance, they would have covered her?

Here's what ICBC says about two optional types of insurance:
http://www.icbc.com/autoplan/optional

Protect you

Having the right coverage protects you and your family. Optional Autoplan products can protect you from the results of a crash, whether it's financial security if you injure someone, or a replacement vehicle to get you around, and much more.

1. Extension Third-Party Liability coverage
If you're responsible for a crash, you might also be responsible for paying to repair the other vehicle or any injury costs for the other driver and passengers. Extension Third-Party Liability protects you and your family from having to pay costs that go above what your Basic Autoplan covers.

Why get it?

Your Basic Autoplan includes up to $200,000 in Third-Party Liability coverage. But the costs of a crash could be much higher, and you could be responsible for the difference.

With Extension Third-Party Liability, you can increase your coverage to a limit of $5 million. Most customers buy limits of $2 million or more.

For the best advice on how much coverage would be right for you, talk to an Autoplan broker.


2. Excess Underinsured Motorist Protection
When it comes to auto insurance, it's smart to look out for yourself. You can't count on other drivers having enough coverage.

Why get it?

A serious crash could leave you with medical costs for the rest of your life. You can increase the underinsured motorist protection provided under your Basic Autoplan up to a total limit of $2 million.

If you're in a crash where the driver at fault doesn't have enough insurance to pay for your injury costs, Excess Underinsured Motorist Protection applies to:
* you and anyone else in your vehicle
* you, no matter what vehicle you're riding in, or when you’re a pedestrian or cyclist, and
* members of your household riding in any vehicle (except ones they own), or who are injured as pedestrians or cyclists.

[rvrepairnut]

I see everyone is slagging on ICBC again for this one.

My question is: if the vehicle had been insured by a private insurance company would the end result have been any different?

why would they not??? ICBC is shoved up our butts so I think one should then beat up ICBC because this insurance ruling is pathetic .

[LongHaul]

The newspaper article leaves out a piece of the puzzle. If I understand the sequence of events this must be how they went.

There isn't any mention that the lady's ICBC insurance was denied so assume her insurance worked. So expect she would have received something from ICBC to cover off her vehicle and her injuries.

Next she sued the estate of her passenger who had grabbed the wheel and was awarded a sizable settlement. It may be the estate of the passenger could not pay this settlement so it was decided to bring ICBC into the picture as the passenger who grabbed the wheel had ICBC insurance.

However this link failed in court and the judge found ICBC did not have to pay the award the lady had won against the passenger's estate.

The judge in his ruling discusses an amendment to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act and the only way to satisfy the sections that related to this case in the revised act was to find ICBC did not have to pay this claim against the passenger's estate.

The judge does address the concern this may lead to for Designated Drivers with the following statement.

The consequence of this interpretation as regards designated drivers is one which some may find disturbing. If that consequence was unintended, that is a matter for consideration by the government.

[Dizzy1]

How about this? If you're impaired and getting a ride home.............don't be a jackass and grab the wheel.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

I'm really hoping that this was a tongue in cheek comment. It is straight forward, when one is sober. Drunks do stupid things, that's why they're getting a ride home. No excuse for doing something that stupid, but what can you do.

[Hassel99]

News story really puzzles me. I do not think it means what the news is making it it out to mean.

Supreme Court justice ruled in favour of the insurance firm because Felix was not covered by third party insurance.

Who is the 3rd party driver? as far as i can tell there is no 3rd party involved here in the legal sense, its a 1st party accident. The driver, who then had an accident not caused by any 3rd party driver

What is not clear by any reporting i have seen is, was her first party coverage voided by the accident? Did ICBC pay for the damage to her car? Did she apply for compensation.





Did she apply for 1st party Accident Benefits ?

Applying for Accident Benefits
If you are injured in a crash, you're entitled to Accident Benefits regardless of fault.
Benefits
The following benefits are available to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians involved in a crash with a B.C. motorist:
medical care
rehabilitation
wage loss compensation
homemaker benefits
death benefits, and
funeral benefits.
If you have permanent injuries, Accident Benefits also pay for costs such as:
attendant care,
specialized aids, and
vocational training, depending on your injuries.
Applying for Accident Benefits
If you are injured in a motor vehicle crash, you can apply for ICBC Accident Benefits to help you with medical costs and wage loss, regardless of who is at fault.
IMPORTANT: You only have 90 days after your crash to return your Accident Benefits form to your adjuster, or you may lose your right to claim for those benefits.

http://www.icbc.com/insurance/insura_ge ... accben.asp

This whole story seems to be revolving around 3rd party insurance, but there is no 3rd party VEHICLE insurance involved in this situation.

Think of it in another situation, you are driving down the street, a person on the sidewalk steps into traffic and you swerve to avoid hitting them. You crash your car into the ditch. Sure you can try and sue the pedestrian, (like the Ms Felix tried to sue the estate) but what if they have no money, does it make any sense to try and sue ICBC for damages based on the pedestrian NOT DRIVING?

In this case, why would ICBC pay damages for the actions of a non driver? Keep in mind she is sueing ICBC via Mr Hearne's policy. Why is she not Sueing ICBC based on HER OWN policy under the clause of Accident Benefits?

No one is asking the right questions here.

Why is there no mention of if HER policy would or did respond for her injuries? (Read the bold part of the quoted section from ICBC's web site)

Why is she not suing his home-owners/tenants/parents homeowners (if he still lived at home) insurance for Negligence? Did he not have a Personal Liability coverage that is included in these policies?

I asked my self all these questions, so i read the actual case.

Here is the judges reason, and it makes sense

[59] For that reason I am led to the conclusion that Mr. Hearne, as a passenger in the plaintiff’s vehicle, was not engaged in use of the vehicle within the meaning of s. 64. The defendant is under no obligation to indemnify the Hearne estate, and the plaintiff’s claim must therefore fail.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/01/2014BCSC0166.htm

You can not sue the Car insurance company for stuff that happened while you are not driving!


This changes nothing for designated drivers, this is a clear case of News organizations not understanding the ruling nor asking the right questions.

I look forward to your questions and comments.

[KL3-Something]

But it's a really good opportunity to report on something in a half-assed way so your site will generate lots of ad space-selling clicks from people getting all worked up at an entity that they already despise.

I think the decision would have been the same regardless of the name on the door of the insurance company. This is a matter of law and not of company policy or public relations.

I also suspect that there is more to the story. There was likely a domestic situation going on in the vehicle at the time that the passenger grabbed the wheel. Not the first time I would be aware of that happening.

[Tero]

she sued the estate of her passenger who had grabbed the wheel and was awarded a sizable settlement. It may be the estate of the passenger could not pay this settlement so it was decided to bring ICBC into the picture as the passenger who grabbed the wheel had ICBC insurance.

The estate of the passenger was tied up by the WIFE AND CHILDREN who were left behind. Hell of a way to find out your husband has been cheating on you.....

[MAPearce]

I also suspect that there is more to the story. There was likely a domestic situation going on in the vehicle at the time that the passenger grabbed the wheel. Not the first time I would be aware of that happening.

Gee whiz KL ....

Do they brain wash you into thinking EVERYONE is a suspect for something in Depot ????

Tell us .. What did you do wrong when you spilled the milk for your corn flakes this morning ?

I think a private insurer wouldn't waste ( because it doesn't have) the stupid amount of money looking for ways to deny a claim the way ICBC does and just pay it out...Do police forces pander to private insurers like they do ICBC ???

An entity that is legislated on us doesn't give a ratzass about bad press ,they blame it on the gov't whereas private insurers COMPETE for money..

[Hassel99]

Mike,

Car insurance companies don't pay claims for incidents that arise when you are not driving your car.

Home and tenant liability policies do however, she sued the wrong type of insurance company.

It makes as much sense as sueing ICBC when you slip on some Ice outside a business or home.

[KL3-Something]

I also suspect that there is more to the story. There was likely a domestic situation going on in the vehicle at the time that the passenger grabbed the wheel. Not the first time I would be aware of that happening.

Gee whiz KL ....

Do they brain wash you into thinking EVERYONE is a suspect for something in Depot ????

Tell us .. What did you do wrong when you spilled the milk for your corn flakes this morning ?

I think a private insurer wouldn't waste ( because it doesn't have) the stupid amount of money looking for ways to deny a claim the way ICBC does and just pay it out...Do police forces pander to private insurers like they do ICBC ???

An entity that is legislated on us doesn't give a ratzass about bad press ,they blame it on the gov't whereas private insurers COMPETE for money..

It's got nothing to do with what was taught at Depot and everything to do with what I've encountered since leaving there. Depot is a bubble. Reality rarely entered that bubble. What I have seen since is reality. And I am still often astounded at what people will do to each other out here in the real world.

And really, first and foremost, insurance companies are in it for the money. They are not going to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars when they are not required to. If this was a private insurer who just lost this case: a) it would not have made the news so people would not have heard about it, and; b) even if it had made the news it would have been forgotton by 99% of the population within an hour and thereby not affected their incoming business at all. The ONLY thing that same 99% of people give a *bleep* about when shopping around for insurance is how much they have to pay. They don't start looking into previous claims by other people or court cases.

True, those private insurers compete for your money. But they also want to KEEP their money. They don't do that by handing it out on claims where they don't have to.

I have had my optional insurance through ICBC and through private insurers. I am no more or less a fan of ICBC than any other. I could take them or leave them. I am in a demographic that saves a little with private companies but only marginally. The times when I have had a claim over the years with ICBC I have had no complaints. But I have never had to deal claims that were more than a few thousand dollar.

I believe that the type of insurance that is being argued over in this case is not the insurance that one must purchase through ICBC and can be bought privately. But people can use it as a chance to whine about ICBC anyway.

[rvrepairnut]

so is one to conclude that this whole deal is really just another misconstrued media story.In fact this women did get lots of insurance money and also tried to sue the estate whom in turn asked ICBC to pay this so called third party claim and ICBC refused and the judge agreed? If this is the true story than I agree as it sounds like ICBC already paid out in this crash case
Based on what I read here in last few posts Iam not sure how ICBC was drug into this deal.It was not ICBC she was suing>

[Hassel99]

She sued ICBC directly, presumable after trying to sue the estate which had no assets.

Felix v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,
2014 BCSC 166


KL3
The insurance that was asked to respond in the litigation is the mandatory 3rd party liability that is provided by ICBC (The first $200k is the only part that is required.) As i mentioned in previous posts its irrelevant as 3rd party auto insurance is not intended to respond on behalf of folks who are not driving.

Normally if you get drunk, drive your car and crash it, you have voided your policy and it will not respond to fix YOUR car and pay YOUR medical bills. This is normal as you have committed an intentional criminal act which is a standard exclusion in ALL insurance policies. The media has spun this story in a way that infers that HER policy was voided by the passenger being drunk, that issue has not been addressed at all in any news story. When i first heard this story that is what i thought. Now that would be an utter travesty of justice if HER policy did not respond due to HIS actions as drunk a passenger.

This case is about HIS policy designed to protect his interest as a driver, he was not a driver thus his policy should not be in the position to respond.

[LongHaul]

Another article about this case was published over the weekend.

The article is interesting, brings up some good points but have some problems with it.

Have inserted the link to it further down. The following are my observations right or wrong...

The judge mentioned amended sections in the Revised Act that one could infer led to his decision to deny that ICBC pay the claim the driver won against the estate of the passenger.

Was curious so checked what changed.

Must be my simple mind hasn't the processing power to handle these paragraphs carefully crafted for legal use. Can't see where the amendments made any difference. Checked some of the obsolete versions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act for Section 66 which states

“Extension of indemnity to passenger
66: Indemnity under this Part is extended to a passenger in a vehicle described in an owner's certificate who, by operating any part of the vehicle while the vehicle is being operated by an insured, causes
(a) injury or death to a person who is not an occupant of the vehicle …”

and this section is in all of them.

Going by this the judge's decision was the correct one and ICBC being governed by this section had to deny the claim.

This issue of a Designated Driver being at risk of limited compensation if an unruly passenger caused an accident has probably been with us from day 1 of the program. It seems to have come to light only now due to the publicity of this case.

The judge after making his decision passed the concern about designated drivers to the Provincial Government by asking if this was the intended outcome of the Act?

The weekend article suggests the Provincial Government should change the law.

However it may not be that simple. Assume the law is changed. Am not an expert in Insurance but questions that come to mind are:
Would coverage only extend to passengers who had ICBC insurance? So the Designated Driver would have to check if a potential passenger has ICBC insurance?
What if the passenger is just in from the Alberta Oil Patch, starved for entertainment and has private insurance?
What about passengers who don't even have a driver's licence?

Could end up a Designated Driver would need to have a lawyer on Speed Dial.

Also the cost of a change will have to be picked up by somebody, guess who this will be....

Suppose there could be an opportunity here for ICBC to bring in more revenue. ICBC could sell optional coverage where they would pick up the liability where needed in this type of case involving passengers. If priced right could generate additional profits which could make it easier for ICBC to meet their revenue transfer target to the Provincial Government.

Link to the recent article follows:
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/local-columnists/law-discourages-designated-drivers.html

[Hassel99]

Interesting points LH.

The jist of the article says, Drivers coverage is extended to the passenger as if they are operating a vehicle themselves (in some case they are, IE open a door and hit a cyclist). Coverage is extended to the passenger to cover 3rd party damages. In this case the insurance does not cover damages to the driver as the driver is not a 3rd party to her own insurance, she is a 1st party.

Here is the thing that does not makes sense, Drivers don't need to be 3rd parties to their own insurance via the extension. Drivers can recover under 1st party accident benefits. This driver should have been paid for her injuries in the exact same manor as if you or I loss control on ice and flipped our car into the ditch and ended up quadriplegic. The fact that the passenger was drunk is irrelevant to this case.

The real questions are, why was she not able to make a claim under 1st party accident benefits? Did the passenger being drunk void her policy? did she get her car repaired by ICBC? Did she simply not claim because she thought she could sue him?