Dealing with ICBC in a accident claim.

[my5cents]

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.

First off, it's PART 7, not Section 7

PART 7 is contractual coverage you have with ICBC.

By contract if you are injured in a claim, you are covered under your contractual, no fault coverage provided under Part 7. Anything that you were compensated for or could have been compensated for under Part 7, is deducted from any claim you have against the Third Party's liability coverage (non-contractual for you).

[Bpeep]

but where does it say it's discounted from your tort claim, like you said it is?

Pardon me for using the wrong word. I'm on my phone in a cold garage.

[Bpeep]

Your recovery in tort will be affected by any pertinent legal fees and disbursements nessecary to recover it.
Your medical costs will not be taken out of your non pecuniary settlement.
I really fail to see where you don't get that.
Like I said, you are not interpreting what you are reading correctly.

[my5cents]

Your recovery in tort will be affected by any pertinent legal fees and disbursements nessecary to recover it.
Your medical costs will not be taken out of your non pecuniary settlement.
I really fail to see where you don't get that.
Like I said, you are not interpreting what you are reading correctly.

So you think ICBC pays you twice for some or all of your medical and wage loss ?

[Bpeep]

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....

This is correct. because it is not tort.

[Bpeep]

The amount paid under Part VII is deducted from your non-pecs,

And this is incorrect.

[my5cents]

And this is incorrect.

So we finally agree. Now that wasn't hard, was it.

[Bpeep]

Lol. that's what I've been saying from the beginning.

[rookie314]

My lawyer got to ask ICBC how much is a right arm worth to a right handed person? My wife was injured in an accident and lost most of the use of her right arm. ICBC caved right there. So I ask all of you the same question. She was 29 at the time.

[Bpeep]

My lawyer got to ask ICBC how much is a right arm worth to a right handed person? My wife was injured in an accident and lost most of the use of her right arm. ICBC caved right there. So I ask all of you the same question. She was 29 at the time.

There are many factors determining the value of an injury claim. It's not limited by the type or extent of injury.
You're best to consult with your solicitor for legal advice.
If your lawyer has to ask icbc anything, you definitely have the wrong representation.
Don't get the person who conveyed your house or did your will to negotiate with icbc. Get someone who deals exclusively with injury claims.

[MAPearce]

Just give up .. OR , get a lawyer..

The Boss got stroked out of an intersection by some dumb *bleep* Oct 14th ... He ran a red light.

ICBC , can't "find" the witness that proves her right and charged her with 50% responsibility despite the police report...

Those thieves at ICBC will do ANYTHING to deny a claim.

And a big shout out to the cop who won't return her calls... Thanks Steve.

Thanks.

[my5cents]

Just give up .. OR , get a lawyer..
The Boss got stroked out of an intersection by some dumb *bleep* Oct 14th ... He ran a red light.
ICBC , can't "find" the witness that proves her right and charged her with 50% responsibility despite the police report...
Those thieves at ICBC will do ANYTHING to deny a claim.
And a big shout out to the cop who won't return her calls... Thanks Steve.
Thanks.

I know you are being genuine here Mike. But let's look at this.

ICBC cant' find the witness. I have to believe that is true, you said it. Did the police get good information on who the witness was ? Was that information incomplete ? Out of town/province witness ?

So we have party A who says he was in the right and we have party B who says he was in the right. Do you ignore on or the other, for some "reason", A is younger so we'll believe B. B was female so we'll give her the benefit.

An insurance company has to go by the evidence. In this case it's a toss up. Not, what the adjuster believes, has a gut feeling about, but the evidence.

I said before the police supply information that ICBC uses to interview witnesses, ICBC doesn't (contrary to what people think) read a police report and make a decision based on a police conclusion.

You say "Those thieves at ICBC will do ANYTHING to deny a claim." So was the claim, 50/50 or was it denied ?

What would you do, if you had to investigate an accident and one person said they had a green light and so did the other. If there were no witnesses and physical evidence didn't shed light ? Think about it.

[MAPearce]

You say "Those thieves at ICBC will do ANYTHING to deny a claim." So was the claim, 50/50 or was it denied ?

It was "aqccepted" BUT any claim would affect the registered owner of the vehicle ( her father) and their premiums WOULD be affected..

All based on the other drivers simple claim that he didn't run the red light...

Want the claim number ? Perhaps you could explain the info given to our family in the ER by the "investigating officer" .. OR maybe , you could explain why he hasn't returned her calls since the 50/50 split decision was given..

She's not looking for a bunch of money for nothing here but to be held even partially responsible may affect her premiums later.. And I wouldn't mind MY money back for her treatment.....

[my5cents]

It was "aqccepted" BUT any claim would affect the registered owner of the vehicle ( her father) and their premiums WOULD be affected..

All based on the other drivers simple claim that he didn't run the red light...

Want the claim number ? Perhaps you could explain the info given to our family in the ER by the "investigating officer" .. OR maybe , you could explain why he hasn't returned her calls since the 50/50 split decision was given..

She's not looking for a bunch of money for nothing here but to be held even partially responsible may affect her premiums later.. And I wouldn't mind MY money back for her treatment.....

Yes, it happens all the time.

Think of it in term of you being one of the adjusters. Each driver says they had a green light. The two vehicle hit, there is no traffic camera, there are no independent witnesses. You know, one is "mistaken" (being charitable), the other is being ripped off. What could you do ?

Unless the police have additional evidence that the adjusters don't have their opinion isn't going to help. To get a response from the constable, they may have to send a letter to the Office in Charge, outlining their efforts to have the member call them back, that WILL get the member's attention.

[MAPearce]

there are no independent witnesses.

There was...But because ICBC can't " find" them , all the other things like ,police reports go out the window...

That's all we know so far ..

Best advice is to get a lawyer who specializes in ICBC claims from the get go AND purchase all optional insurance from a private provider...

No point in spending money for insurance if , really, you're NOT insured..