Difference between revisions of "ICBC and Compulsory Coverage (12:X)"

According to [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1931/1931canlii473/1931canlii473.html?autocompleteStr=mcknight%20v%20general&autocompletePos=1 McKnight v General Casualty Insurance Co. of Paris], 1931 CanLII 473 (BC CA), an insured need not provide information or evidence to an insurance company respecting a breach if the company is contemplating using such a breach to deny coverage to the insured. This is not considered to be refusing to cooperate with the insurer in the defence of the action. However, the insured may still have to provide information regarding the accident itself.

Regardless of who is at fault in an accident, ICBC pays benefits for injuries to the occupants of a licensed vehicle and pedestrians and cyclists injured by a vehicle described in any owner’s certificate. The accident benefits, commonly called “no-fault” benefits, are payable to an insured for death or injury caused by an accident arising out of the owner’s ownership, use, or operation of a vehicle in Canada or, with some restrictions, in the U.S. (''IVR'', s 79(1)).

# damages for loss of inheritance.

No-fault benefits can be reinstated if a person receiving benefits goes back to work only to find that the injury comes back and prevents them from working ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1999/1999canlii6570/1999canlii6570.html?autocompleteStr=brewer%20v%20ins&autocompletePos=1 ''Brewer v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia''] 1999 CanLII 6570 (BC SC). This includes a situation where a plaintiff goes back to work prior to the end of the 104-week period and leaves work after the end of the 104-week period ([http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2016/2016bcca207/2016bcca207.html?autocompleteStr=symons%20v%20insu&autocompletePos=3 ''Symons v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia''], 2016 BCCA 207 (CanLII)).