Dealing with ICBC in a accident claim.

[Bpeep]

I think you may be indirectly referring to situation you may have heard about people getting over a half million for a claim.
It is in fact possible. It happens all the time.
Theres so many aspects to consider, besides the non pecuniary and a few trips to the doctor.
Perhaps the injured was a high wage earner, was very young, had lots of young children, and was permanently disabled.
I know im taking an extreme example, but theres going to be all the related costs of lifelong care for the injured, future lost wages, costs of the care that the children would have otherwise recieved, etc.
They all fall as costs of the claim.
In this instance, the claimant may recieve the maximum in non pecuniary, (340k ish or whatever it currently is), but there could in fact be all those other expenses, some that would have been incurred if the accident didnt happen, and some that are expenses becuase of the accident, including wage loss, etc.
So, yes, this person will have a sizeable claim, perhaps well over a million, but the max hes gonna get in non pecuniary is what they have it capped at.
The rest will be for expenses, including losses, for the duration of the injury, whether he heals today, or never does.
If he never does, and it can be demonstrated that he likely never will heal, whats often negotiated is a max in non pec and an annuity for future expenses.
I dont feel that getting 340 or 350 k plus all future wage loss etc and costs is enough for someone to have to sit in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives.
But they did have to cap the non pec somewhere.
Its one insurance company usually insuring both parties.
If it was like it is in the states with thousands of insurance companies, it would be different.
But like I said earlier, if they didnt cap it and peeps were successfully suing for a million for a broken toe, the rates would be in the thousands a month to insure a 20 year old car, not 90 a month.
Icbc will cover all your accident related costs, both past and future, as long as it can be proven.
And your non pecuniary is limited.

[my5cents]

That's what non pecuniary is.
icbc still has them capped. I'm really not sure what you're trying to debate.
What you're going to get in an injury claim is that and your medical related expenses.
And you aren't allowed to profit on your medical expenses.

ICBC doesn't have them capped. They are capped but not by ICBC

Your medical related expenses fall under Part VII, which is your no fault coverage. The amount paid under Part VII is deducted from your non-pecs, if you are not liable for the loss. Part VII is available to everyone insured by ICBC at fault or not.

[Bpeep]

Ok so you want to sit and debate about who capped what?
Non pec is capped. Period.
Maybe someone's mom at the supreme court capped it, but icbc still has non pec capped.
When a claim goes to a trial, it's the courts that award the damages.
And part v11benefits and non pec are two different things.
I'll explain it this way.
Part 7 benefits are " no fault" benefits. nobody has to be at fault.
You can be in a single vehicle collision and be eligible for part 7 benefits.
That's your medical and medical related costs.
Non pecuniary benefits are a separate benefit and they are determined as a result of tort. Somebody must have harmed you. non pec are a tort claim. you cannot harm yourself and sue yourself for tort.

[Bpeep]

Your medical related expenses fall under Part VII, which is your no fault coverage. The amount paid under Part VII is deducted from your non-pecs.

Lol. so you figure that if someone has 10 k in med costs and is awarded 10 k in tort, that they get zero.

[my5cents]

Lol. so you figure that if someone has 10 k in med costs and is awarded 10 k in tort, that they get zero.

Perhaps you should read Section 72.1 (2) of Part 6 of the Insurance(Vehicle) Regulations

It describes "Restrictions on indemnity" of Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage.

"72.1 (2) Where a claim is payable or has been paid, forfeited or denied under Part 7, the corporation shall deduct the amount of the claim from any amount payable under this Part in respect of the same occurrence."

[Bpeep]

Perhaps you should read it. With a clear mind.

[ValB58]

Perhaps you should read Section 72.1 (2) of Part 6 of the Insurance(Vehicle) Regulations

It describes "Restrictions on indemnity" of Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage.

"72.1 (2) Where a claim is payable or has been paid, forfeited or denied under Part 7, the corporation shall deduct the amount of the claim from any amount payable under this Part in respect of the same occurrence."

The ENTIRE section is:

Restrictions on indemnity
72.1 (1) The corporation shall not indemnify an insured under this Part in respect of

(a) a general or special assessment, penalty or premium payable under the Workers Compensation Act or a similar law of another jurisdiction, or
(b) loss or damage to property
(i) carried in or on a vehicle described in an owner's certificate,
(ii) owned or rented by an insured, or
(iii) in the care, custody or control of an insured.
(2) Where a claim is payable or has been paid, forfeited or denied under Part 7, the corporation shall deduct the amount of the claim from any amount payable under this Part in respect of the same occurrence.
(3) and (4) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 166/2006, s. 57.]
[en. B.C. Reg. 438/92, s. 8; am. B.C. Reg. 166/2006, s. 57.]

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/ ... /447_83_06

[JLives]

Lawyer up and if you are injured keep in contact with your doctor. I successfully sued ICBC 6 years after an accident as I had to wait to be an adult before I could file. We were rear ended by a guy driving a stolen vehicle and it screwed up my shoulder but I was going to massage, physio and the chiropractor on a regular basis in the meantime.

[my5cents]

The ENTIRE section is:
Restrictions on indemnity
72.1 (1) The corporation shall not indemnify an insured under this Part in respect of

(a) a general or special assessment, penalty or premium payable under the Workers Compensation Act or a similar law of another jurisdiction, or
(b) loss or damage to property
(i) carried in or on a vehicle described in an owner's certificate,
(ii) owned or rented by an insured, or
(iii) in the care, custody or control of an insured.
(2) Where a claim is payable or has been paid, forfeited or denied under Part 7, the corporation shall deduct the amount of the claim from any amount payable under this Part in respect of the same occurrence.
(3) and (4) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 166/2006, s. 57.]
[en. B.C. Reg. 438/92, s. 8; am. B.C. Reg. 166/2006, s. 57.]

Yes, that is the entire section. Your point is ?

[ValB58]

Yes, that is the entire section. Your point is ?

My point is: You MUST read the ENTIRE section and have a legal professional, who has much more experience in this area before relying upon, a partial quoting from a section they know nothing about, in these forums.

[my5cents]

My point is: You MUST read the ENTIRE section and have a legal professional, who has much more experience in this area before relying upon, a partial quoting from a section they know nothing about, in these forums.

Oh, I read the ENTIRE section. For simplicity sake I only included the subsection that pertained to the discussion.

Subsection (1) has no impact what so ever on subsection (2), and as a result I didn't clutter the issue with it.

The basis of subsection (2) is that ICBC, having a legal requirement, under Part 7, to pay medical and wage loss to or on behalf of a claimant, shouldn't be liable to pay it again in tort.... "where a claim, is paid, or payable under Part 7, ICBC shall deduct that amount from the amount payable under Third Party Liability coverage" thus it's deducted, as I said.

[Bpeep]

You are misinterpreting it.
I'm not close to my computer and I'm not going to pull it up on my phone, but in essence I believe it means that icbc pays costs after any other applicable policies are exhausted. ie, if Wcb or a private insurer is responsible for any part of the expenses, their obligations are considered first.

If you read what you quoted, you will see its all pertaining to claims under Part 7.
It has nothing to do with non pecuniary damages.

[my5cents]

You are misinterpreting it.
I'm not close to my computer and I'm not going to pull it up on my phone, but in essence I believe it means that icbc pays costs after any other applicable policies are exhausted. ie, if Wcb or a private insurer is responsible for any part of the expenses, their obligations are considered first.

If you read what you quoted, you will see its all pertaining to claims under Part 7.
It has nothing to do with non pecuniary damages.

Sec 72.1 is contained in Part 6 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations

Part 6 pertains to "Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage"

72.1 (2) States : "Where a claim is payable or has been paid, forfeited or denied under Part 7, the corporation shall deduct the amount of the claim from any amount payable under this Part in respect of the same occurrence."


"this part" = Part 6

Part 6 = "Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage"

So (translation) : "Where a claim has been paid under Part 7, ICBC shall deduct the amount of the claim from any amount payable under Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage"

[Bpeep]

Perhaps you can tell us where it says that any section 7 benefits are deducted from a tort claim?
and, please, show where they actually say " deducted from tort".

[Bpeep]

They won't pay sec 7 benefits again in non pec,
and they aren't discounted in non pec.
Section 7 benefits and non pecuniary damages are very separate parts of a claim, both compensating for something very different than the other.
Icbc loves people like you.