If ICBC doesn't pay for Fire Dept's response they should start... just look at
ICBC's accumulated surplus and profits in the newspaper article below "Taylor
gets ICBC bonus pay".
We are waiting a response from Regional District of Central Okanagan on this
matter to find out if taxpayers pay for the Fire Dept's response for traffic
accidents. We sent an email April 14, 2008. RDCO said they will get
back to us with the answer.
I don’t advertise my occupation when I’m out and about, unless I’m
at a Chamber of Commerce function where circulating business cards
is the expected activity.
With much of the population believing that car crash lawyers are
shady characters who make bags of money helping undeserving whiners
screw the insurance company, I’d rather avoid the issue.
It also avoids dealing with those folks who see the opportunity to
get a little free legal advice. I don’t mind helping out, but giving
legal advice is what I go to the office all day to get paid for
doing.
The topic is hard to avoid, though. When meeting new people,
exchanging occupation details is about as commonplace as exchanging
names and sharing how many kids you have.
And as much as I try to avoid the topic coming up, I am occasionally
very happy that it does. From time to time, the person I am
talking to has either been injured in a crash or is close to someone
else who has suffered a similar fate. Those people don’t have
so much of a bias against car crash lawyers because they know that
crash injuries are real and that injured victims need all the help
they can get when going against the insurance company.
I am often the first car crash lawyer he or she has talked to. I get
a kick out of giving the “straight goods” that he or she is not
getting from the insurance adjuster.
I had my best encounter of this kind during this past Christmas
season. A lady I was chatting with mentioned a crash she had
been in. She wasn’t digging for free legal advice, just bringing up
something that we would have remotely in common.
In the course of our discussion, she told me in a “matter of fact”
way that she didn’t have a claim because she didn’t have the license
plate number of the vehicle that had caused the crash. She had
been given that “information” from the insurance adjuster she had
consulted when she had gone to make a claim for compensation for the
losses she had suffered arising from the crash.
She didn’t have a license plate number because the offending driver
had taken off instead of pulling over to exchange information as had
been agreed.
Perhaps I shouldn’t still get so livid when I hear about insurance
adjusters giving false or misleading information to crash victims.
Unfairness just gets under my skin. A huge insurance company taking
advantage of the position of authority that the general public
perceives it to have is at the far end of offensive to me.
It’s simply dead wrong that you need to have a license plate number
in order to make a claim. You need to take reasonable steps to
determine the identity of the offending driver, and having the
license plate number is helpful to make that determination, but if
reasonable steps are taken and no information can be determined,
that is no bar to a claim.
I discussed the rules related to this kind of claim in some detail
in my
previous column of June 1, 2008, which can be found in my
web site archive. I took such intense pleasure filling
the lady in on the correct information. Fortunately, our chance
meeting occurred before the expiration of some critical
deadlines—deadlines which, if missed, could truly eliminate her
claim.
Along with the pleasure, though, came a deep frustration. Why
did it take a chance meeting at a friend’s Christmas season open
house for this lady to get the most basic of accurate information
about her legal rights arising from a crash?
How many others are in her position of having received
misinformation from the insurance company?
That’s the main reason why I take the time each week to write this
column. It is to replace misinformation with accurate information.
It is to combat unfairness arising from a misplaced trust in the
insurance company. It is to reach out to people like this lady to
assist in achieving the very basic objective of justice.
This column is intended to provide general information about
personal injury claims. It is not a substitute for retaining a
lawyer to provide legal advice specifically pertaining to your case.
For an archive of Paul Hergott’s published columns, see
www.hergottlaw.ca. Paul Hergott is a lawyer with Hergott Law
in West Kelowna.
If there are particular issues you would like discussed in this
column, please e-mail him directly at:
We are exposed to life’s minor injustices on a regular basis—an
impatient shopper cutting in line, a schoolyard bully stealing a
treat, a cheater.
Even the minor ones are hard to take. I want to jump in, send the
shopper to the back of the line, return the treat, disqualify the
cheater.
Of course, I am not alone. I like to think that we all have that
sense of fairness.
How often, though, do we actually get to stop injustice in its
tracks?
Not long ago, I was consulted by a fellow who had been injured in a
car crash through no fault of his own.
It was just over two years after the crash and the pain from those
injuries had become chronic.
He was looking for a lawyer to help him achieve fair compensation
for his injuries.
How I wished he had come to me just a couple weeks earlier.
Have you ever heard of a limitation period? It is a time
limit.
If a lawsuit is not started within the time limit, the right to fair
compensation expires.
One day, you have a claim and the next day, the claim is gone.
The fellow who consulted me had been dealing directly with the
insurance company.
I don’t know whether the adjuster handling his claim mentioned the
limitation period but I do know, with certainty, that he wasn’t
sufficiently warned because he didn’t come to me until after the
limitation period had expired.
One day he had a case and the next day he didn’t.
I wonder how many of the hundreds of millions of dollars of
insurance company profits are made up of cases like that one. I
wonder if they uncorked champagne.
Is your skin crawling? Hang on. I have a better story.
It was a Friday afternoon. I had just returned to the office from a
type of pre-trial hearing.
A lady called me over as I was heading into my office. She asked me
if I did any personal injury work. (No, she doesn’t read this
column.)
She told me about her sister who had been in a crash a couple of
years earlier.
She had been dealing directly with the insurance company but had
finally decided to hire a lawyer.
I don’t know exactly what the insurance adjuster told her but I do
know what she had come to understand from those discussions.
She understood that if she didn’t settle her claim within
two years, she would have to hire a lawyer.
Her sister was helping her find a lawyer.
She happened to see me coming into my office and happened to
inquire.
Get this: It was two years to the day after the crash.
In my mind’s eye, I could already see the bottles of champagne lined
up, on ice at the insurance company offices.
In 2 ½ hours, the court registry where the lawsuit had to be filed
would close.
In 150 minutes, the claim would be gone.
There’s something about a looming deadline that focuses you.
There’s also something about 150 minutes standing between justice
and injustice that stokes the fire under your boiler.
Fortunately, we live in a technological world. I was able to contact
the sister on her cell phone.
Once I explained the urgency of the situation, she immediately left
work went home and gave me the necessary information from the police
report.
I left an urgent message for the adjuster but, of course, I couldn’t
rely on a timely response from him.
I prepared the writ on my computer, printed, signed, scanned and
filed it electronically.
It was a sweet thing seeing that electronically affixed court
registry date stamp on the document.
Injustice averted—by a hair.
I’m not a champagne kind of guy. I cracked a beer or two.
There’s a lesson in this. You cannot rely on an insurance
company to advise you about your rights. That’s not its role.
Its allegiance is to the driver who caused the crash and to its
bottom line, not to you.
Another lesson? Sometimes the stars really do line up.
This column is intended to provide general information about injury
claims. It is not a substitute for retaining a lawyer to provide
legal advice specifically pertaining to your case.
Paul Hergott is a lawyer with Hergott Law on the Westside. If there
are particular issues you would like discussed in this column,
please e-mail Paul directly at:
paul"at"hlaw.ca
Whiplash rates turning heads in BC
British Columbia's claims rate for whiplash, about 900 per 100,000
population, is more than twice the rate for any other jurisdiction
in the world, the BC Medical Journal reports. Dr. Murray Allen, a
former associate professor of kinesiology at Simon Fraser
University, says whiplash accounts for about 60% of all injuries
reported following vehicle collisions in BC, compared with 35%
worldwide (BCMJ 2002;44:241-2). He says part of the "high
claims behaviour" may be explained by lawyers' earning potential
from such cases. — CMAJ
Ombudsman Reports on ICBC’s Minimal/No Damage-Low Velocity
Impact Program
VICTORIA – Provincial Ombudsman Howard Kushner today released
Special Report No. 26, a report on his office’s investigation of
a program initiated by ICBC to deal with claims arising from
low-velocity motor vehicle accidents. “Our concern from the
outset of our investigation was that
it
appeared that some people with legitimate claims were being
denied compensation and benefits,” noted Kushner.
In addition to the concerns raised during our investigation,
ICBC’s internal audit corroborated problems of inconsistency in
the application of the Program, identifying problems with the
way ICBC had handled over 38 percent of the 494 bodily injury
claims examined. from page 11
In accordance with section 23 of the Ombudsman Act, I notified
ICBC that our investigation concluded that
ICBC acted in an
arbitrary and unfair manner in creating and maintaining a
Program from 1992 until 2003 that erected unfair barriers to
recognizing claims stemming from a large number of motor vehicle
accidents.
Our investigation concluded that the Program, as it existed from
its inception in 1992 until it was modified in 2003, was
inadequate and contravened our Office’s standards of fairness
for an administrative program. I have made the following
recommendation, which stems from this finding, pursuant to
section 23 of the Ombudsman Act:
That ICBC review any claim that was closed under the MND/LVI
Program if people approach ICBC maintaining that their claims
were unfairly denied under that Program. ICBC’s final response
to our investigation, provided in a letter dated April 29, 2004,
is included in the Appendix.
Although my
Office regrets that ICBC has declined to accept the above
recommendation,
I note that a positive outcome of our Ombudsman initiated
investigation has been the many claims that were reviewed by
ICBC and adjusted on their merits. from page 14
So ICBC has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Somehow
this doesn’t surprise me.
I say they should be investigated, to find out what is really going
on.
Like many government agencies, they have been ripping people off for
too long and are getting away with too much.
As our family found out, in the eyes of ICBC you are guilty till
proven innocent.
In 2005, our daughter was in a car accident where she was rear-ended
at a yield sign. The car was a write-off and she was taken to
Kelowna General Hospital.
Over three years she would see four different specialists, all
concluding she would have permanent damage for the rest of her life.
As this was not enough evidence for ICBC, they proceeded to request
all her school records and all employment history.
The icing on the cake was the day they would bring her in a room to
discuss the death of her brother, who died in a work related
accident in 2004.
She was asked why she never went to see a psychiatrist. That day was
a very bad day for her. How dare they bring up a matter that is none
of their business and what does this have to do with her accident?
Our family is so disgusted with ICBC, they have no right to be
getting away with what they are doing.
ICBC Departing ICBC president Paul Taylor will still get to spend
his bonus pay cheque for steering the public auto insurer to
record-setting profits last year.
Taylor resigned Friday amid controversy over vehicles ICBC repaired
and sold – some with undisclosed crash histories to the unsuspecting
public and other better buys to ICBC staff who trumped all other
bidders in rigged auctions.
ICBC won't say exactly how big Taylor's bonus pay package is this
year.
But he collected an
extra
$60,000 two years ago for 2005, in addition to his
base
salary of $300,000.
"We aren't giving out specific performance pay amounts," said ICBC
spokesman Doug Henderson, adding the corporation now only discloses
total remuneration paid to employees in a year-end financial report.
In 2006,
Taylor earned a total of $421,000 in pay (including performance pay)
and claimed expenses totalling $58,500.
The equivalent figures for 2007 won't be released for several weeks.
Performance bonuses were paid out on March 20.
ICBC last year recorded a
huge $642 million profit – its highest ever –
although about $135 million of that came from the one-time sale of
its Central City property in Surrey.
ICBC's
accumulated surplus has ballooned to $2.1 billion.
Financial performance is one of the main criteria for awarding bonus
pay.
Because Taylor departed voluntarily he does not receive any
severance pay.
ICBC and government officials say Taylor's departure to pursue new
opportunities was unrelated to the scandal over salvage cars.
An investigation by independent auditors is underway and the RCMP
are also reviewing the matter.
Taylor has said he learned of the improprieties in late January.
He becomes president and director of NaiKun Wind Group Inc., a firm
that plans to build windmills in Hecate Strait off the Queen
Charlotte Islands.
"I am proud to be joining a leader in clean-energy development,"
Taylor said in a NaiKun press release. "It is an exciting and
unparalleled opportunity to build a project, an industry and a
legacy of clean, renewable power for the province."
NaiKun contributed $4,740 to the B.C. Liberal party last year,
Elections BC records show.
VICTORIA – Independent auditors have been hired to examine reports
that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. sold vehicles repaired at its
Burnaby research centre without disclosing to buyers that they had
been written off in accidents.
ICBC identified as many as 174 vehicles where the repairs may not
have been properly documented and disclosed to purchasers, as
required by provincial law.
Solicitor General John Les said Thursday that the Material Damage
Research and Training Centre has reopened after being closed in
early February when the allegations came to light, but no further
vehicles will be sold until the independent investigation is done.
Les said all the people who bought cars from the research facility
have been contacted, and the vehicles inspected to ensure they are
safe. He was unable to say whether buyers would receive
compensation.
ICBC disclosed the problem in a statement issued Feb. 13, in which
it declined to comment further until the investigation is complete.
Les said the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse-Coopers and an
independent law firm are handling the investigation.
In the legislature last week, NDP critics called on the government
to prevent ICBC from handling its own investigation of what NDP
leader Carole James called “ICBC’s alleged chop shop.”
Les replied that independent auditors and lawyers were in charge of
the investigation, and he would make the findings available when
their work is complete.
The facility repairs about 20 vehicles a year and employs 12 ICBC
staff.
ICBC is moving to trim optional auto insurance premiums after
recording a huge
$642-million profit for 2007.
Optional premiums are to fall three per cent or an average of $16,
while basic rates stay frozen — the public insurer had warned last
fall it might have to increase them due to rising injury claims.
"Our early analysis indicates that there is no need for additional
rate changes for basic insurance," ICBC president and CEO Paul
Taylor said.
The reason for the cut in optional rates is that motorists and
police are increasingly winning the war against auto thieves in B.C.
The continued trend of falling car thefts has translated into fewer
claims and lower insurance costs.
Annual payouts due to car theft are down more than $30 million or
almost one third over the past five years.
ICBC spokesman Doug McClelland credits the use of the bait car
program to catch thieves in the act, as well as innovative new
tactics being used by police to curb chronic car thieves.
But he said the single biggest factor has been the growing
prevalence of vehicle immobilizers that stop thieves from hot-wiring
a car if the key is absent.
Most of ICBC's record profit — far above the old record of $373
million in 2004 — came from investment earnings.
The one-time sale of ICBC's Central City property in Surrey
contributed $135 million alone.
The profit jump pushes ICBC's accumulated surplus up 40 per cent to
$2.1 billion. The money is needed to cover long-term claims payouts
and has now hit its target level ahead of schedule.
Critics frequently contend that ICBC seeks to lower rates on
optional insurance — where it competes with private firms –
ICBC has cut its optional premiums in three of the last four years,
while boosting basic rates in two of those years.
But McClelland said there's a good reason for that.
Basic premiums primarily pay for injury costs, which continue to
rise at a consistent rate of around $100 million per year, in
contrast to vehicle damage costs that have trended downward.
"By and large those costs are going in different directions," he
said.
Actual insurance costs in 2008 will depend on each vehicle, motorist
and factors like where they live and what coverage they select.
McClelland said the typical motorist who buys optional coverage from
ICBC has seen only a net increase of $2 in their insurance costs
over the past five years —
The optional rate reduction takes effect July 1.
"After five years, rates effectively have not changed for most
customers," he said.
January 9, 2008 another email was sent to Reg Fredrickson regarding the
18 cars
in the ditch up Bear Creek as seen on CHBC TV news ... I was wrong it was 18
cars in the ditch on one street, 5 vehicles in the ditch up Bear Creek, and 3 in
the ditch on Hayman Road, which totals
26 vehicles in the ditch in one day in
Kelowna.
If you are not satisfied that you have been treated fairly after the FPRD has
reviewed your situation, you may wish to contact the ICBC Fairness
Commissioner. Please note that the Commissioner does not deal with
decisions involving the assessment of liability. You can write to the ICBC Fairness
Commissioner at the following address:
ICBC Fairness Commissioner
P.O. Box 86686
North Vancouver BC V7L 4L2
If you remain dissatisfied after attempting to resolve your issue through the
available remedies, you may contact the Office of the Ombudsman and they will
review your concerns to determine whether or not they will investigate your
complaint.
You will find
local Okanagan BC businesses, services, classifieds, local arts and crafts, vacation waterfront rentals, plus much more
located near and around Okanagan Lake. We will be adding to this site, so come back and
check it often.