5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "ICBC and Compulsory Coverage (12:X)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
ICBC and Compulsory Coverage (12:X) (view source)
Revision as of 20:17, 17 June 2016
, 20:17, 17 June 2016no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
*b) an applicant for coverage knowingly misrepresents or fails to disclose a fact that was required to be stated in the application (s 75(a)(ii)); | *b) an applicant for coverage knowingly misrepresents or fails to disclose a fact that was required to be stated in the application (s 75(a)(ii)); | ||
*c) an insured violates a term or condition of or commits a fraud in relation to the plan or the OIC (s 75(b); see [[{{PAGENAME}}#11. Breach of Conditions and Consequences | Section II.B.11. Breaches of Conditions and Consequences]]; | *c) an insured violates a term or condition of or commits a fraud in relation to the plan or the OIC (s 75(b); see [[{{PAGENAME}}#11. Breach of Conditions and Consequences | Section II.B.11. Breaches of Conditions and Consequences]]; | ||
*d) an insured makes a “wilfully false statement” with respect to a claim under a plan of insurance (s 75(c)). | |||
'''NOTE:''' According to ''Brooks v ICBC'' (1994), 89 BCL.R. (2d) 215 (S.C), per Bouck J, the purpose of s 19(1)(e) (now IVA, s 75(c)) is to prevent intentionally deceitful misstatements for the purpose of defrauding the insurer; “exaggerated guesses” by an insured as to the value of a lost motor vehicle, or figures inserted for the purpose of goading an insurer into action, are insufficient to deny coverage unless a fraudulent purpose on the part of the insured is shown. However, ICBC may relieve the insured from forfeiture under s 75 if said forfeiture would be “inequitable”. Furthermore, ICBC must relieve an insured from forfeiture if: a) it is equitable to do so, and b) the insured dies or suffers a loss of mind or bodily function that renders the insured permanently incapable of engaging in any occupation for wages or profit (IVA, s 19(3)). Because there are various definitions of “insured” in the IMVAR (and IVR), the only reasonable interpretation of s 19 (the relief of forfeiture provision discussed above) is that it is to be read broadly to include all of the definitions: see Khatkarv ICBC (1993), 25 CCL.I. (2d) 243 (BC Prov. Ct.), per Stansfield Prov. Ct. J. 1 1.Breach of Conditions and Consequences Insured persons must be careful to abide by the terms and conditions of their plans and OICs. Coverage may be lost if an insured breaches certain conditions, including, but not limited to: a)failing to comply with s 73 of the IVR, to the prejudice of ICBC (See Section II.B.7Duty of Insured); b)operating a vehicle when not authorized and/or not qualified to do so (IVR, s 55(3)(a)); NOTE: “Occasionally” using a vehicle to go to and from work when a vehicle is insured only for pleasure use is permissible under s 55(2) of the IVR. But, ICBC has ways to determine whether or not the insured has more than occasionally breached such a condition. If a change of use is contemplated, additional coverage should be bought. c)using the vehicle in illicit trades, racing, or avoiding arrest or other police action (IVR,s 55(3)(b), (c) and (d)); d)towing an unregistered and/or unlicensed trailer (IVR, s 55(4)); e)using the vehicle for a different purpose than the one declared by the insured in his or her application for insurance, except as “occasionally” permitted (IVR, s 55(2(a)); or f)naming in the owner’ s certificate someone as the principal operator of the insured vehicle who is not actually the principle operator (IVR, s 75). NOTE: When the court determines who the principle driver is, it will consider the entire period covered by the insurance plan: see Dehm v ICBC (1982), 32 BCL.R. 23. Despite any breach of condition by an insured, insurance money is still payable to third partiesby ICBC in cases where the insured person was: a)incapable of properly controlling the vehicle because of the influence of alcohol or drugs; | |||
