ICBC Rate Hike Letter to PolicyHolders Does Not Taint Injury Claim Jury Pool

Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing whether ICBC should lose the right to trial by jury due to a letter they sent their policy holders blaming increased insurance rates on ‘rising injury costs’.
In today’s case (Yates v. Lee) the Plaintiff was injured in a 1998 collision.   He was 6 years old at the time.  His matter was set for trial in February, 2015 and ICBC, the insurer for the Defendant, elected to proceed via jury trial.  The Plaintiff argued that the Court should use its inherent jurisdiction to strip ICBC of their right to jury trial suggesting that the letter ICBC sent their policy holders “has tainted the jury pool by creating a real potential for bias against plaintiffs among jurors who are policy holders“.  Mr. Justice Pearlman disagreed finding there was no reason for the Court to use its inherent jurisdiction and the trial judge could deal with any suggestion of bias.  In reaching this decision the Court provided the following reasons:
[12]         Shortly after November 1, 2013, ICBC began including in the insurance renewal notices sent to each of its policy holders the following statement:
          ICBC Rate Changes:
Rising injury costs mean we’re asking the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) for 4.9% increase to Basic insurance rates. The BCUC has approved an interim rate increase of 4.9% effective November 1, 2013 and will make a final decision after a public hearing process. If a final approved rate differs from the interim rate, your Basic premiums will be adjusted for the difference, subject to the BCUC’s final Order. We are also able to reduce our optional rates to lessen the impact on you.
[13]         The renewal reminder also included a statement of the insured’s estimated total premium for the year…
[53]         Here, at best, the material filed by the plaintiff goes no further than establishing a possibility for bias on the part of some prospective jurors who are  ICBC policyholders. In addition to relying on the renewal notice itself, the plaintiff referred to Norsworthy v. Green, (30 May 2009), Victoria Registry 06 2644 (B.C.S.C.).  There, Macaulay J. commented, obiter, that every potential juror knows that ICBC funds damages awards, and that this creates the risk that prospective jurors may believe the higher an award in a given case, the greater the likelihood that their own insurance premiums may rise. Macaulay J. observed that such thinking is improper, and would, if disclosed, demonstrate bias. The plaintiff also filed newspaper and Internet articles referring to Shariatamadari v. Ahmadi (4 May 2009), Vancouver Registry S061583 (B.C.S.C.), where the trial judge’s investigation into complaints of juror misconduct revealed that one of the jurors, during deliberations, had expressed concern that a high damage award would drive up their own auto insurance rates. This material falls well short of establishing that a real potential exists in the circumstances of this case that some jurors may be incapable of setting aside any prejudice they may have as a result of the renewal notice, and deciding this case impartially, after receiving appropriate instructions from the trial judge.
[54]         Even if this court had the inherent jurisdiction to strike a jury notice for juror partiality, I would decline to exercise that jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case for the following reasons:
(a) the court is asked to find that ICBC’s communication to its policy holders through the renewal notices constitutes prejudicial pre-trial misconduct in the absence of an adequate evidentiary foundation;
(b) to grant the relief sought would skirt the challenge for cause process by having the court make a determination of juror partiality without requiring the plaintiff to satisfy both branches of the well-established test for juror partiality, and without any inquiry to determine whether particular members of the juror pool selected for this case could not serve impartially; and
(c) another decision-maker, the trial judge, has all the powers necessary to ensure trial fairness…
[59]         Chester provides further support for my conclusion that the plaintiff’s assertion of juror partiality is a matter which, if pursued, must be raised before the trial judge for determination through the challenge for cause process, rather than before a chambers judge who has neither the inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, nor an adequate evidentiary foundation on which to do so.

bc injury law, Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, Mr. Justice Pearlman, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Rule 12, Rule 12-6, Rule 12-6(5), Yates v. Lee

Comments (16)

  • I simply want to tell you that I am newbie to blogging and truly savored your website. Very likely I’m want to bookmark your site . You surely have amazing article content. Cheers for revealing your website page.

  • Wow! This could be one particular of the most beneficial blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Wonderful. I’m also an expert in this topic so I can understand your hard work.

  • What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It positively useful and it has helped me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & aid other customers like its aided me. Good job.

  • I do believe all the ideas you have presented on your post. They are very convincing and can certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are very quick for beginners. May you please extend them a bit from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

  • I was curious if you ever thought of changing the layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images. Maybe you could space it out better?

  • I haven’t checked in here for a while because I thought it was getting boring, but the last few posts are good quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my everyday bloglist. You deserve it my friend 🙂

  • We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve done a formidable job and our whole community will be thankful to you.

  • Thanks on your marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author.I will make certain to bookmark your blog and will come back from now on. I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great work, have a nice afternoon!

  • Hey There. I discovered your weblog using msn. This is a really well written article. I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your useful information. Thank you for the post. I’ll certainly comeback.

  • It’s really a great and helpful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

  • Terrific work! This is the type of info that should be shared around the web. Shame on Google for not positioning this post higher! Come on over and visit my site . Thanks =)

  • Great blog! Do you have any recommendations for aspiring writers? I’m planning to start my own website soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you suggest starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely overwhelmed .. Any tips? Bless you!

  • Hola! I’ve been following your weblog for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Kingwood Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Contact

If you would like further information or require assistance, please get in touch.

ERIK
MAGRAKEN

Personal Injury Lawyer

When not writing the BC Injury Law Blog, Erik is the managing partner at MacIsaac & Company, based in Victoria, B.C. He is also involved with combative sports regulatory issues and authors the Combat Sports Law Blog.

“Work hard, be kind and enjoy the ride!”
Erik’s Philosophy

Disclaimer