Skip to main content
Search Results for “section 24 insurance vehicle act

Party Substitution Orders and ICBC Unidentified Motorist Claims

As previously discussed, when injured by the fault of an unidentified motorist in BC, a Plaintiff can sue ICBC directly for damages in place of the unknown motorist provided section 24 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act is complied with. After a lawsuit starts, if the unknown motorist becomes known then the Plaintiff can substitute the appropriate party.  Reasons for […]

Employer Paid Wage Replacement Benefits Non-Deductible in Hit and Run Claims

Section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation permits ICBC to reduce compensation by any amount paid by another “insured claim” in claims for injuries caused by unidentified motorists or uninsured motorists under section 24 and section 20 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act .  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing whether […]

Out of Province Quantum Awards Not Binding in ICBC UMP Proceedings

In my continued efforts to create a searchable UMP Claims database, I summarize a 2009 UMP Decision addressing whether ICBC could re-litigate quantum of damages after the issue was already decided in an out of Province trial.  In short the Arbitrator held that trial verdicts addressing liability are binding for UMP coverage purposes but awards addressing […]

Foreign Insurers Entitled to Rely on s. 103 Limitation Defence; Adding Defendant Beyond Limitation Discussed

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal addressing the ability of foreign insurers to rely on the s.103 limitation defence for no-fault accident benefits. By way of background, BC’s Financial Institutions Act requires out of Province vehicle insurers to sign a “Power of Attorney Undertaking” in essence promising to provide […]

BC Court of Appeal Rejects ICBC's Argument for "Expanded" Hit and Run Victim Obligations

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Court of Appeal rejecting ICBC’s arguments trying to impose “expanded” requirements for hit and run victims to be compensated for their injuries. By way of background individuals injured by unidentified motorists can sue ICBC directly for compensation but there are statutory requirements that need to be […]

ICBC's Part 7 Exam Thwarts Defence Medical Exam Application

As previously discussed, when a Defendant is insured with ICBC their ability to set up an ‘independent‘ medical exam can be compromised if ICBC exercised their rights to have the Plaintiff examined under section 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation and if that exam went beyond what was required for a ‘part 7’ opinion.  Reasons […]

ICBC Hit and Run Claim Succeeds With The "Expectation The Other Driver Would Comply With the Law"

Useful reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, which I summarize in my continued efforts to highlight the ‘reasonable efforts’ requirement for hit and run accident victims. In last week’s case (Singh v. Clay) the Plaintiff was injured in a handful of collisions.  In one of the incidents the […]

Welcome CKNW Listeners

This afternoon I had the pleasure of being interviewed with Sean Leslie from CKNW.  The show focused on the recent bus collision in Richmond, BC which injured numerous passengers. Thank you to all my new visitors.  If you are looking for more information regarding the topics discussed you can click on the following links to access my […]

More on Part 7 Medical Exams Barring Tort Exams

As previously discussed, ICBC can typically arrange an ‘independent’ medical exam (IME) in one of two ways.  The first is when an insured applies for first party no-fault benefits.  Section 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation gives ICBC the power to compel an IME in these circumstances.  The second is under Rule 7-6(1) of the BC […]