2,734
edits
Difference between revisions of "Optional ICBC Insurance (12:XI)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Optional ICBC Insurance (12:XI) (view source)
Revision as of 03:31, 7 October 2022
, 03:31, 7 October 2022→(2) Appeal Process: Two Routes
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
If a client is dissatisfied with an adjuster’s decision, there are two available courses of action: | If a client is dissatisfied with an adjuster’s decision, there are two available courses of action: | ||
:(a) the client can go through ICBC’s internal appeal procedure by asking the adjuster to review their decision and, if there is no change, by asking the claims manager to review it. If the client is still not satisfied, the third step is to present the client’s case to an appeal panel; or | |||
:(b) the client can sue. This is commonly the most satisfactory course, particularly where the amount in issue is relatively small, as where the damage is about the same amount as the “deductible”. Such an action is not brought against ICBC under the policy, but against the driver (and owner, ''MVA'', s 86) whose negligence is said to have caused the accident. In such a case, that ICBC was not liable to pay the “deductible” to its own insured does not relieve the negligent party from liability, assuming always that negligence can be established. | |||
There are two ways in which to frame the action. The plaintiff can either claim the total amount of damage resulting from the negligence, even though ICBC has already paid a portion of it, or the plaintiff can claim merely the amount that ICBC has not paid. Remember, however, that a plaintiff cannot collect twice, and if they sue for more than the deductible, they may be held to be acting as a trustee for the Corporation and therefore liable to account for anything in excess of the deductible. In either case, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving the negligence alleged against the defendant. | There are two ways in which to frame the action. The plaintiff can either claim the total amount of damage resulting from the negligence, even though ICBC has already paid a portion of it, or the plaintiff can claim merely the amount that ICBC has not paid. Remember, however, that a plaintiff cannot collect twice, and if they sue for more than the deductible, they may be held to be acting as a trustee for the Corporation and therefore liable to account for anything in excess of the deductible. In either case, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving the negligence alleged against the defendant. | ||
'''NOTE''': If ICBC denied liability to indemnify a person insured by it and that person is sued, ICBC is entitled to apply to the court to be joined as a third party (''IVA'', s 77(3)). Upon being made a third party, ICBC can then defend the action fully, despite its previous denial of liability to indemnify the defendant (''IVA'', s 77(4)). In ''West v Cotton'' (1994), 98 BCL R (2d) 50 (SC), the third party, ICBC, conducted the defence of a defendant to whom it denied coverage and who did not participate in the proceedings. Having succeeded in proving his claims, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover their costs, with one exception: that being against the third party. In this case, ICBC would have suffered significant prejudice if it had been precluded from presenting its defences as third-party since the defendant did not demonstrate any interest in maintaining the action. | :'''NOTE''': If ICBC denied liability to indemnify a person insured by it and that person is sued, ICBC is entitled to apply to the court to be joined as a third party (''IVA'', s 77(3)). Upon being made a third party, ICBC can then defend the action fully, despite its previous denial of liability to indemnify the defendant (''IVA'', s 77(4)). In ''West v Cotton'' (1994), 98 BCL R (2d) 50 (SC), the third party, ICBC, conducted the defence of a defendant to whom it denied coverage and who did not participate in the proceedings. Having succeeded in proving his claims, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover their costs, with one exception: that being against the third party. In this case, ICBC would have suffered significant prejudice if it had been precluded from presenting its defences as third-party since the defendant did not demonstrate any interest in maintaining the action. | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | ||
