ICBC Law

The first judgement that I’m aware of dealing with the new formal settlement offer rule (Rule 9) was released today by the BC Supreme Court.

In today’s case (Demarzo v. Michaud) the Plaintiff was injured in a BC motor vehicle collision.  He went to trial and was awarded $356,000 in total damages.  (you can click here to read my post summarizing the trial judgement).  Prior to trial the Plaintiff made a formal settlement offer to resolve the claim for $150,000.

Having comfortably beat his pre-trial settlement offer the Plaintiff asked the Court to exercise its discretion and award double costs under Rule 9-1 (Rule 9 reads almost identically to the old Rule 37B.  You can access my archived posts dealing with Rule 37B by clicking here).

Prior to trial the Plaintiff obtained various independent medical reports.  The Plaintiff served these on the Defendant in compliance with the rules of Court but not as quickly as possible.  In an interesting application of the new rule Mr. Justice Brown held that double costs should not be ordered if a party failed to make “timely disclosure of documents“.  Specifically the Court held as follows in refusing to award the Plaintiff double costs:

[18]         The main purpose of Rule 9-1 is to encourage parties to settle, early if possible. But the purposes of the Rule, and modern practice, assumes timely disclosure of documents and reports that would significantly affect a party’s ability to make a rational assessment of the litigation risks they face. While it is true the Rules of Court provide parties means to discover facts and the parties can conduct their own investigations to assess litigation risks, in my view it is also incumbent on a party expecting an order for double costs to show timely disclosure of documents and reports that would have significantly affected the other party’s assessment of whether the offer ought reasonably to be accepted.

[19]         Further, while evidence at trial produced a judgment that was more than double what the plaintiff offered to settle for, I note that the plaintiff’s credibility, tested on cross-examination, and the specialist reports served in October 2009 were important factors in the damages awarded.

[20]         Considering these factors, I find an award of double costs is not in keeping with the purposes of the Rule and I decline an award.

When a personal injury claim goes to trial there is a winner and a loser.  Who the winner is, however, is not always apparent by reading the Court judgement.  To know who the winner really is you have to know the behind the scenes formal settlement offers.

Reasons for judgment were released today demonstrating, yet again, the steep costs Plaintiffs can face when on the losing end of a BC personal injury lawsuit.

In today’s case (Smagh v. Bumbrah) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  She sued for damages.  Before trial the Defendants made a formal settlement offer for $20,000.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer and went to trial.  After 10 days of trial a BC Jury awarded $2,200.  The Defendant was awarded ‘costs’ from the date of the formal offer onward.  (You can click here to read my summary of the costs judgement).

On the face of it the Plaintiff clearly lost because she was awarded far less by the Jury than the settlement offer.  But the full extent of the loss is far greater than the difference between $20,000 and $2,200.  The Plaintiff actually ended up owing the Defendant money for this result.  How much money?  Approximately $40,000.

You can read today’s judgment in full to see the types of items a losing litigant can end up owing the winning side to a lawsuit and to see just how quickly a ‘costs’ award can add up.

Today’s case helps illustrate an important point I’ve previously stressed.  Before a case goes to trial it is important to fully consider the potential risks and rewards including the significant toll a costs award can have.  Without knowing and weighing these risks it is very difficult to make an informed choice about whether to settle or proceed to trial.

Reasons for judgement were released today considering whether strict compliance with Rule 37B is required for a Court to award a successful party Double Costs after beating a formal settlement offer at trial.

In today’s case (Eigeard v. Muench) the Plaintiff sued for personal injuries.  Prior to trial the Plaintiff made a written settlement offer to resolve the claim for $107,500.  The claim went to trial and the Plaintiff enjoyed success with a Jury awarding more than settlement offer.

The Plaintiff then asked the Court to award Double Costs under Rule 37B.  The Defendant objected arguing that the formal offer did not strictly comply with Rue 37B(1)(c)(iii) which requires formal offers to contain the following sentence:

“The ….[name of party making the offer]…. reserves the right to bring this offer to the attention of the court for consideration in relation to costs after the court has rendered judgment on all other issues in this proceeding.”

The Plaintiff argued that the Court still had the discretion to award double costs because “the defendant’s insurers are sophisticated and understood the content of the offer and there is no confusion.” and that “this was a legitimate attempt by the plaintiff to resolve the action.”

Madam Justice Hyslop disagreed and concluded that the Court did not have the discretion to award double costs in these circumstances.  The Court went onto summarize the applicable law as follows:

[16] In Roach, the exact words of Rule 37B(1)(c)(iii) were not contained in the offer to settle pursuant to Rule 37B. Despite this, the trial judge ordered double costs. This was one of the grounds of appeal.

[17]         The offer to settle was in the form of a letter directed to counsel. The letter set out an offer of settlement and then stated:

We reserve the right to bring this letter to the attention of the judge as a matter of costs in accordance with Rules 37 and 37A. [para. 32]

[18]         Madam Justice Prowse, writing for the Court, stated:

[35] It is not disputed that the terms of Ms. Roach’s offer substantially complied with the requirements of an offer under Rule 37B(1)(c): it was made in writing; it was delivered to Mr. Dutra (through his counsel); and it contained a sentence in terms similar to those set forth in subrule (1)(c)(iii). Nor is there any suggestion that Mr. Dutra was misled by the offer in any way, or that he believed that he could disregard the offer with impunity with respect to costs because it did not track subrule (1)(c)(iii) word-for-word. Rather, Mr. Dutra takes what appears to be the highly technical point that if an offer does not contain the exact wording set out in subrule (1)(c)(iii), it does not come within the definition of an “offer to settle” within the meaning of Rule 37B(1) and, therefore, cannot attract an award of double costs.

[19]         Madam Justice Prowse considered both a strict and relaxed interpretation of Rule 37B(1). In doing so, she reviewed the history of Rule 37 and the enactment of Rule 37B.

[20]         She concluded that the enactment of Rule 37B was a move away from strict compliance as was the situation of Rule 37. In considering the offer, Madam Justice Prowse stated at para. 52:

That said, I am also of the view that the wording of the offer must be substantially compliant with the wording of subrule 1(c)(iii) such that no reasonable person could be misled as to the intent of the offer or the fact that it was an offer within the meaning of Rule 37B. In other words, the offer must be in writing, the wording must make it clear what party is making the offer and to whom it is made, and it must include the fact that the party making the offer is reserving the right to bring the offer to the attention of the court in relation to costs after judgment on all other issues in the proceeding.

[21]         The court in Roach upheld the trial judge’s finding that the offer meant the requirements of Rule 37B. At para. 54, Madam Justice Prowse endorsed the trial judge’s admonition that:

…counsel would be well advised to ensure that the language of their offers complies precisely with subrule 1(c)(iii) (and, in future, Rule 9-1) to avoid any possibility of their offers being found deficient. In this case, the offer was made just days after the new rule came into effect. It may be that the same measure of flexibility will not be accorded to offers in the future which are non-compliant. That is especially so if it proves that flexibility in the application of the Rule undermines its purpose of encouraging settlement of disputes in a fair, timely and cost-efficient manner, in accordance with the object and spirit of the Rules as a whole.

Madam Justice Hyslop then dismissed the application for double costs with the following reasons:

[25]         The offer does not meet the criteria set out in Roach. Rules 37(22) and (37) address the consequence of accepting an offer. There is nothing in the offer of the plaintiff to suggest that the plaintiff intends to bring the offer to the trial judge’s attention as it relates to costs.

[26]         The court’s discretion under Rule 37B comes into play after the court determines whether the offer complies with Rule 37B(1)(c) and as interpreted by Roach.

[27]         I dismiss the plaintiff’s application for double costs. The defendant shall have costs of this application pursuant to scale B to be set off against the costs otherwise awarded to the plaintiff.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B so this case will likely retain its value as a precedent moving forward.

Rule 37B, the BC Supreme Court Rule dealing with formal settlement offers, continues to be shaped by the Courts.  One factor that is not yet firmly established is what effect a “walk away” offer made by a Defendant has after a Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed at trial.

When a party sues for damages in the BC Supreme Court and later decides that their lawsuit is likely going to lose at trial they can discontinue.  If this is done the Defendant is able to seek their costs at the time of discontinuance unless they waive this right.  A common strategy of Defendants when they are confident they will win at trial is to make a formal “walk away” offer where they waive their right to costs if the Plaintiff discontinues.  If the Plaintiff does not take the offer and goes on to lose at trial the Defendant may be entitled to ‘double costs’ which could easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court dealing with a walk away offer.

In this week’s case (Riley v. Riley) the parties were involved in a lawsuit involving the transfer of real-estate between family members.  (although this was not a personal injury case there is no reason why the Court’s reasoning cannot be used in the injury claims context).  Prior to trial the Defendant made a formal offer under Rule 37B for the Plaintiff to walk away from the lawsuit on a ‘no costs‘ basis.  The Plaintiff refused the offer, went to trial where her case was dismissed.  The Defendant then asked the Court to award ‘double costs‘ and Mr. Justice Greyell agreed to do so.  In concluding that this was a fair result the Court provided the following reasons:

[20] In MacKinlay v. MacKinlay Estate, 2008 BCSC 1570, Savage J. also considered the effect of Rule 37B when a nominal offer was made.  The issue was whether double costs should be awarded where the successful defendant had made a nominal offer to settle.  He held, at paras. 34-35:

[34]      While a nominal offer might be described as strategic, it was a strategy aimed at persuading the Plaintiffs to discontinue the proceeding, an outcome that is favourable as compared to the outcome the Plaintiffs obtained at trial.  Such an offer is one of the few tools in the arsenal of a defendant of relatively modest means which might exert pressure on a plaintiff pursuing an unmeritorious claim.

[35]      In this regard, albeit in the context of the former Rule, the Court of Appeal in Kurylo v. Rai 2006 BCCA 176, 53 B.C.L.R. (4th) 214, at ¶ 7 said:

…. When a defendant assesses his position in litigation of any kind he may consider that the plaintiff has no case and if the case goes to trial, will fail.  But the defendant may also be willing to make some minor offer which would carry with it the costs in the hope that the action will go away and that he will not, thereafter, incur large legal bills to establish his legal position that the plaintiff has no case.

[21] I see no logical distinction between a nominal offer and an offer such as that made by the defendant in this case.  The principle is the same.  One party is provided with an offer to settle and if not successful at trial in advancing its position relative to the offer it may be held accountable for costs of pursuing the matter to trial.

[22] The second factor referred to in Rule 37B(6) clearly favours the defendant.  The judgment upheld the position she outlined in the offer to settle.  Had the plaintiff accepted it he would have saved not only his legal costs but also the legal costs he must pay to the defendant as the successful party.

[23] There are no other relevant circumstances which bear on my determination of double costs.  The caution expressed by Hall J.A. in Catalyst Paper Corporation v. Companhia de Navegaçäo Norsul, 2009 BCCA 16, 86 B.C.L.R. (4th) 17, is applicable in this case.  Based on the considerations in the above paragraphs, I conclude the plaintiff shall pay double costs to the defendant.  Those double costs shall commence seven days from the date the offer was made.

As mentioned at the start of this article, the formal offer Rule is still being shaped and the result of a ‘walk away’ offer is still not certain.  To read a case where the Court refused to award double costs where a walk away offer was made you can click here.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B so the issue of the effect of ‘walk away’ offers will continue to be judicially shaped moving forward.

While Rule 37B is still being shaped in its application one pattern that is relatively well established is that if a Plaintiff is awarded less at trial than ICBC’s formal settlement offer the Plaintiff will likely be deprived of their trial costs and be ordered to pay a portion of the Defendant’s costs.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Courtenay Registry, demonstrating such a result.

In this week’s case (Berry v. LaBelle) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  He sued for damages.  The month before trial ICBC made a formal settlement offer to resolve the claim for $46,000.  This offer was rejected.  At trial the Plaintiff was awarded $30,000 in total damages by the BC Supreme Court (you can click here to read my article summarizing the trial judgement).

ICBC brought a motion under Rule 37B to be awarded double costs for all steps taken in the lawsuit after the formal offer was delivered.  Madam Justice Baker refused to award double costs, however the Court did deprive the Plaintiff of costs following the formal offer and ordered that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs from the week after the offer was made through to trial.

The Court recognized that such an order would significantly reduce the amount of damages the Plaintiff would receive.  Madam Justice Baker provided the following reasons justifying this result:

[13] Counsel for the defendant submits, and I agree, that the plaintiff did set his sights very high at trial.  In oral submissions at the end of trial, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages was between $150,000 to $200,000; that the plaintiff should receive an award of $45,000 to $60,000 for past loss of income; and that the court should award $400,000 for loss of the capacity to earn income in future.  The submissions about income loss were particularly ambitious given that the plaintiff provided no documentary evidence whatsoever about income earned by the plaintiff before or after the accident…

[15]        I consider that the offer made by the defendant was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, although the plaintiff would, in my view, have reasonably needed some time to consider his position and seek his counsel’s advice.

[16]        As stated earlier, the plaintiff ought to have anticipated significant difficulty in maintaining a loss of income claim without the ability, or willingness, to provide documentary evidence about his earnings before or after the accident.

[17]        By the date of the defendant’s offer, the plaintiff had available to him the medical opinion evidence on which he relied at trial.  Given that the medical evidence ruled out neurological injury; plaintiff’s counsel would have had plenty of precedents available to assist in assessing the likely range of quantum of non-pecuniary damages…

[19]        Certainly the effect of the costs order the defendant is seeking would be to deprive the plaintiff of the greater part of the compensation to which I concluded he is entitled by reason of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injury…

[21] In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to make an award of double costs in favour of the defendant.  The defendant having elected to proceed under Rule 66, I am satisfied that the defendant’s entitlement to costs should be governed by Rule 66.  I award the plaintiff his costs, on Scale B, not to exceed $6,600, up to and including April 21, 2009, plus disbursements incurred to that date.  In respect of proceedings after that date, the defendant shall have her costs, but also limited to $6,600 pursuant to Rule 66(29); and her disbursements from and after April 22, 2009.   There shall be no order for double costs.

As readers of this blog are likely aware, Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 on July 1, 2010 when the new BC Civil Rules come into force. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which will likely have cases such as this one retain their value as precedents moving forward.

You can click here to access my archived posts discussing other Rule 37B cases.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court considering whether a Defendant should be awarded double costs for successfully defeating a lawsuit where they made a formal settlement offer before trial.

In today’s case (McVeigh v. McWilliams) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant alleging defamation.  Before trial the Defence lawyer made a ‘walk away’ offer under Rule 37B (click here to access my previous posts and recent video discussing formal settlement offers and costs consequences) which was phrased as follows:

Our client will waive costs in exchange for your consent to a dismissal of your claim on a “without costs” basis. Our client reserves the right to bring this offer to the attention of the court for consideration in relation to costs after the court has rendered judgment on all other issues in this proceeding, in accordance with Rule 37(b) of the Rules of Court.

The Defendant, who was awarded Costs for succeeding in the lawsuit, asked the Court to exercise its discretion under Rule 37B and award double costs.  Mr. Justice Shabbits refused to do so finding that the Plaintiff was entitled to his day in Court and should not be penalized with an order of double costs for failing to beat a walk away offer.  The Court reasoned as follows:

[23] A defendant in every case in which a non-monetary issue is at stake could offer to “settle” on the basis that the plaintiff concede the cause of action, and they could do so as soon as they file the statement of defence. The issue is whether such an “offer” should attract double costs.

[24] I acknowledge that in this case the defendant did offer to waive costs to the date of the offer. But, costs here were never the issue. In my view, the defendant’s offer did not really involve any meaningful element of compromise. In respect of the cause of action, the defendant’s position after delivery of the offer to settle was the same as before delivery. It was as set out in the pleadings.

[25] In my opinion, it was not unreasonable of the plaintiff to refuse the defendant’s offer. He, too, was entitled to have the issue tried.

[26] In my opinion, no order for double costs is warranted. The defendant is entitled to his costs on Scale B except for the costs of this application. The plaintiff has enjoyed substantial success on this application, and he is entitled to his costs of it on Scale B.

I should point out that it is possible for a Defendant to be awarded double costs for beating a settlement offer if the lawsuit is dismissed, however, in cases where the settlement offer was no more than a ‘nuisance’ offer or a ‘walk away’ offer the BC Supreme Court may be reluctant to make such an award.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

When taking an ICBC or other BC personal injury claim to trial in the Supreme Court it is vital to understand the financial consequences that can be triggered when formal settlement offers are made. I have written dozens of articles on this topic and you can access these here.

Below is a brief video discussing some of the key factors you need to consider when reviewing ICBC’s formal settlement offer under the BC Supreme Court Rules and further the issues you should consider when making your own formal settlement offer. I hope this information is of assistance.

In my continued efforts to write about the development of Rule 37B (the rule that deals with costs consequences after a party beats a formal settlement offer at trial) two cases were released this week further interpreting this rule.

The first case (Ostiguy v. Hui) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 BC car crash.  She ultimately represented herself.  In the course of the lawsuit ICBC made a formal settlement offer under the old Rule 37 for $30,000.  The Plaintiff did not accept this offer and went to trial.  The Jury awarded the Plaintiff $10,000.   The Defendants brought a motion for costs.

After addressing a technical issue about the offer’s general compliance with the old Rule 37 Mr. Justice Williams decided that the offer was capable of triggering costs consequences under the new Rule 37B.  The Court went on to award the Defendant 60% of their costs from the time that liability was admitted onward.  In reaching this decision the Court held that whether the Defendant was insured with ICBC was not to be considered (an issue the BC Supreme Court cannot agree on and needs to be addressed by the Court of Appeal).

The Court made the following notable comments:

[68] I have no knowledge as to the circumstances of the defendants; I will proceed on the basis that they are ordinary people of ordinary means. I should note parenthetically that, although they were represented by an insurer, it is their circumstances and not those of the insurer which are to be considered…

[71] In this case, the costs which the plaintiff is liable to pay are substantial. That is attributable in significant part to the fact that this litigation dragged on considerably. The plaintiff hired and subsequently discharged two different lawyers before proceeding to act for herself. There were a number of delays. Costs have mounted.

[72] The law is clear that sympathy is not a basis to determine the outcome of matters such as this. Nevertheless, it is quite disconcerting to see the plaintiff’s award of damages for her injury completely obliterated and overshadowed by a costs obligation, and for the consequences in fact to go further, to leave the plaintiff with a huge bill to pay as well.

[73] At the same time, the Court must be cautious that the sound and basic principles that underlie the costs regime are not simply disregarded because the plaintiff chose to represent herself and chose to proceed as she did.

[74] In the final result, the matter requires a balancing of a number of considerations and a significant application of judgment to try and fashion an outcome that is fair in the circumstances. Approaching the task in that fashion, I have decided as follows:

(a)      The effective date of the Offer will be July 14, 2008, when the defendants advised the plaintiff that liability was being admitted.

(b)      Up to July 14, 2008, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants her costs and disbursements.

(c)      For the time period following July 14, 2008, the defendants are entitled to recover from the plaintiff their disbursements and 60% of their costs.

For my readers not familiar with the potential extent of cost consequences I should point out that on these findings there is a good chance that the Plaintiff, despite being awarded $10,000 by the Jury, would end up owing ICBC money.  When preparing for trial it is imperative that parties consider the potential consequences of formal settlement offers.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

The second case released this week was interesting because the Defendant made what appears to be a novel use of Rule 37B.  Usually parties restrict formal settlement offers to the issues to be addressed at trial.  In this week’s case (Moro v. El Mantari) the Defendant used Rule 37B in a Chambers application.

The parties could not agree on a lot of issues in the lawsuit.  Prior to trial the Parties brought cross motions to be decided in Chambers.  Prior to this pre-trial hearing the Defendant made a formal settlement offer under Rule 37B asking that the Plaintiff consent to various aspects of their motion.

The Defendant was largely successful in Chambers.  The Court was asked to award the Defendant double costs for Chambers because of the formal offer.  In the first case that I’m aware of using Rule 37B in this fashion Mr. Justice Chamberlist agreed that it was a permitted use of the Rule.  Specifically the Court held as follows:

[18] The defendant submits that it should be entitled to double costs on the basis of its offer to settle to the plaintiff made on June 26, 2009.  At that time the defendant asked the plaintiff to consent to items 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of her notice of motion.

[19] The fact is that R. 37 has since 2008 been amended by deleting the subrules that an offer to settle did not apply to interlocutory proceedings.  The overriding fact is that there must be substantial success.  ..

22] Thus R. 37B(4) permits the court to consider an offer to settle when exercising the court’s discretion in relation to costs.

[23] As a result, the fact that the defendant has failed to meet the terms of the offer to settle will no longer necessarily mean that she would be deprived of her double costs.  In various decisions of this court it would appear that an issue which has been discussed in many cases is whether the offer to settle is one that ought reasonably to have been accepted (R. 37B(6)(a))….

[26] The enactment of R. 37B so that it now applies to interlocutory applications as well as trial, demonstrates the purpose of the new rule is to allow an offer to settle to be made, and if I were to follow the plaintiff’s position it would completely ignore the important deterrent function of the rule…

[32] In this case the offer to settle was made on June 26, 2009, and I find that the defendant was substantially successful.  The defendant shall have her costs of her attendance before me on August 27 and 28, 2009, as calculated in accordance with R. 37B, namely double costs.

In my continued efforts to get us all prepared for the New BC Supreme Court Civil Rules I will again point out that Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 under the New Rules. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as these retain their value as precedents.

One principle that is becoming well defined with respect to Rule 37B is that settlement offers made on the eve of trial may not trigger any costs consequences.  Reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating this.

In today’s case (Parwani v. Sekhon) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 BC car crash.  The Plaintiff sued for damages.  As trial approached the Plaintiff offered to settle his case for $37,000 plus costs and disbursements.  On the last business day before trial the Defendants responded with a formal settlement offer under Rule 37B for $10,000 plus 50% of disbursements.

The claim went to trial and the Plaintiff claimed damages of $270,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the Plaintiff being found 75% at fault.  Damages were assessed at $25,000 leaving an award of $6,250 for the Plaintiff (25% of $25,000).

The Parties could not agree on costs consequences.  The Defendants argued that since they beat their formal offer they should be awarded the costs of trial.  Madam Justice Ross disagreed with this submission finding that while the Defendants offer should have been accepted it was simply made too late.  In declining to award the Defendants any costs the Court reasoned as follows:

[18] The defendants submit that the offer to settle was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted given the evidence with respect to the liability issue. In addition, the position taken by the plaintiff at trial with respect to his losses was unreasonable given the medical evidence and the paucity of evidence to support the claims. The offer exceeded the plaintiff’s recovery at trial. The position of the plaintiff was that he did not have adequate time to consider the offer, coming as it did on the eve of trial. Moreover, had the plaintiff accepted the offer, considering the disbursements already incurred, the plaintiff would have recovered only $765.34. Accordingly, it was not reasonable to accept the offer. The plaintiff had made an early offer to settle that reflected a considerable discount to reflect the uncertainties in the case.

[19] In my view, while the defendants’ offer was reasonable, it was not early. It came on the eve of trial, after substantial costs and disbursements had been incurred. Such an offer is not the embodiment of the conduct the rule intends to promote. In the circumstances, and considering the factors identified in the rule, I am not prepared to consider the offer in relation to the award of costs.

As readers of this blog are likely aware, Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9 on July 1, 2010 when the new BC Civil Rules come into force. The new rule uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B which should help cases such as this one retain their value as precedents.

You can click here to read access my archived posts discussing Rule 37B in injury lawsuits.

Further to my numerous posts discussing the development of Rule 37B, reasons for judgement were released today demonstrating that this Rule’s application is still being shaped by the BC Supreme Court.

The one factor that has yet to receive judicial agreement is whether the defendant being insured is a factor the Court can consider when exercising its discretion to award costs under the rule.  There are cases going both ways and today’s case shows that the debate goes on.

In today’s case (Wittich v. Bob) the Plaintiff was injured in a car crash.  Her husband was the at fault driver.  She sued for damages.  Before the trial the Defendant (through his insurer ICBC) made a formal offer to settle the case for $40,100.  Later the Defendant withdrew this offer and made a second formal under Rule 37B to settle the case for $65,000.  The Plaintiff rejected this offer, made her own formal offer of $196,000 and proceeded to trial.

At trial the Plaintiff sought damages of $847,000.  The claim was largely unsuccessful with the Court awarding just over $31,000 in damages.  (You can click here to read my summary of the trial judgement).

The Defence then brought a motion to be awarded costs and disbursements.  This application was partially successful with the Defendant being awarded their costs and disbursements from 6 weeks before trial through trial.  Before coming to this decision, however, Madam Justice Bruce was asked to consider whether the fact that the Defendant was insured with ICBC was a factor the court can consider when weighing the financial positions of the parties.  The Court ruled that this indeed is a relevant factor holding as follows:

[23]        Turning to the financial circumstances of the parties, it is clear that, as a married couple, the plaintiff and the defendant have the same economic position.  The authorities are divided as to whether the circumstances of the insurer should be considered as a relevant factor in an order for costs. In the particular circumstances of this case, I find it is appropriate to consider the insurer’s resources in comparison to the plaintiff’s. The defendant Mr. Wittich supported his wife’s claim and testified that her pain and suffering after the accident was considerable and prolonged; however, counsel for the defendant took an entirely different position in argument. Thus it must be inferred that counsel was taking instructions from the insurer and not the litigant.

[24]        The plaintiff is not a wealthy person. She has not worked for a considerable period of time. The defendant has an income of less than $70,000 per year. I thus find that their economic circumstances are far less substantial when compared to that of the insurer. It is also apparent that an award of costs may deprive the plaintiff of the judgment awarded at trial. These are factors in her favour.

Rule 37B has been on the books now for almost two years.  The Court is clearly conflicted about whether the availability of insurance is a relevant factor under the rule.  When the New BC Supreme Court Rules come into force on July 1, 2010 Rule 37B will be replaced with Rule 9.  Rule 9 uses language that is almost identical to Rule 37B so the lack of clarity will likely continue.  In light of the on-going conflicting authorities it will be useful if the BC Court of Appeal addresses this issue.