$866K in crash damages
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Jul 24th, 2014, 11:38 pm
$866K in crash damages
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....
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....
- Fancy
- Insanely Prolific
- Posts: 72225
- Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm
Re: $866K in crash damages
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
- Hassel99
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 9:31 am
Re: $866K in crash damages
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.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Feb 26th, 2010, 5:26 pm
Re: $866K in crash damages
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.
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.
- MAPearce
- Buddha of the Board
- Posts: 18763
- Joined: Nov 24th, 2009, 5:15 pm
Re: $866K in crash damages
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 .
Ya know , like how much ICBC played their lawyers to defend against paying such a large settlement .
Liberalism is a disease like cancer.. Once you get it , you can't get rid of it .
- StraitTalk
- Lord of the Board
- Posts: 3702
- Joined: May 12th, 2009, 4:54 pm
Re: $866K in crash damages
The article points out that the other drive is liable for 400+k in damages... does that mean his insurance ie. ICBC or him?