B.C. couple lies to save $800; now owes insurance company $200,000

[neLLy_]

B.C. couple lies to save $800; now owes insurance company $200,000

A couple who lied to the provincial insurance agency in hopes of saving barely $800 in premiums has instead been ordered to pay the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia more than $200,000.

In imposing the judgment on Bahadur and Amarjeet Panag, of Surrey, Justice Christopher Grauer wrote “rationality is seldom the partner of deception.”

He found the Panags began lying one day after a May 2, 2006 crash, arranging for a friend to claim he was an independent witness to the collision, which occurred when Amarjeet Panag missed a stop sign at a busy intersection and was T-boned by an oncoming vehicle.

The friend, Harinder Grewal, whom Judge Grauer refers to as a “self-confessed liar,” never saw the crash but mirrored Ms. Panag’s claim that the oncoming car had blown through a pedestrian-operated red light, hitting Ms. Panag as she and two other vehicles crossed the intersection.

Judge Grauer sided with another witness and the driver of the oncoming car, who reported Panag’s vehicle never slowed for the stop sign.

The judgment finds ICBC can recover the $188,722.86 in costs and damages, pre-judgment interest and a further $10,000 in punitive damages against each of the Panags, for sticking to their doctored story throughout the trial.

Couple to pay $200,000 for insurance scam attempt - The Globe and Mail

Glad these scammers got caught! Imagine what the other driver must of endured until this was clear up. How are people capable of intentionally putting others through such misery?..

[StylinRed]

ouch now thats a panag in the ass

[radioman]

I'd love to see a minor premium reduction for having a dash cam.

[asma123]

He deserved it...
If you're gonna be the reason of an accident and then not admit fault... thats just wrong. Pay up.

[lowside67]

What a crock of shit. It's these types of absolute drains on the system that cause all of us to pay more for our premiums, have a harder time collecting when we are victims, and generally reduce the value that we receive. These people committed willful, intentional fraud which is a crime. They should be facing criminal charges in addition to the civil financial penalties.

Mark

[E60_M5]

Same thing happened to me 2 years back. I was driving on No 3 Road and this dude in a F150 didnt shoulder check before changing lanes, his front bumper clipped my rear end. Got out of the car and asked for his drivers license, at that time he took off and I called the cops. Went and deal with the hit and run with ICBC and then 2 weeks later ICBC called and said they have witness that I hit the F150. I told ICBC that I will not take fault and even if that means hiring a lawyer and fighting it. 5 months later while I was on vacation in HK, ICBC called and said they have changed the ruling that I was not at fault after investigation.

Moral of the story is that, when u get into an accident and u know for a fact that u are not at fault and somehow there's witness provided by the other party that says otherwise. Make sure u let ICBC know and stand your ground!

[inv4zn]

The fuckbag witness should also get fined.

Sounds like he at least had an ounce of conscience though, from the article.

[FerrariEnzo]

lets get a picture of these douche bags so everyone knows who they look like...

[Gumby]

Glad to see there have been no racist comments posted so far.

[parm104]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Glad to see there have been no racist comments posted so far.

Agreed and surprised. These people are causes a burden on our system and we may all feel the affects of it, but I'm glad RevScene, UNLIKE the rest of the online community, sees that this is a problem with PEOPLE in society and not the race or ethnicity of these people. If this was CTV.ca, the forum would be loaded with "get out of our country" comments...

The sad thing is, I'm sure this theme of false witnesses and frivolous claims are far more common than we see. It probably happens every single day.

A dash cam is an investment that I feel I might make soon. Although the cost of one is pretty high, perhaps the savings I incur may be greater.

[Presto]

Originally Posted by parm104

A dash cam is an investment that I feel I might make soon. Although the cost of one is pretty high, perhaps the savings I incur may be greater.

It's worth the cost! Especially, when you constantly see stupid shit happening, and wish you were recording it. Also, it's nice for rubbernecking accidents without rubbernecking

[Kidnapman]

Originally Posted by FerrariEnzo

lets get a picture of these douche bags so everyone knows who they look like...

[radioman]

$200-300 cost of the avg deductible.

Great tool that needs to be used by more people.

[duy-]

Originally Posted by Gumby

Glad to see there have been no racist comments posted so far.

douchebags come in all colors shapes and sizes. i witness an accident on imperial where a russian dude backed up into a chinese lady taking a left into a gas station. he got out and started blaming her, i came over and told them i saw it but asked him what happened. he said "i was backing up and she hit me" (he was backing up into an entrance to the gas station)
i had a feeling he'd change his story so i gave them both my number and said i have no idea whos right or wrong but ill retell the story to icbc.
a week later icbc called, he claimed he was going straight and she turned into him. sent them an email of a picture i took of the scene and cleared things right up, he was found at fault but the only thing that happened was his premiums went up.. so reading this story really warms my heart.

btw the girl at icbc was very thankful for my testimony and picture and said icbc would be sending me a thank you in the mail... it was a piece of paper that said "thank you"..... thought they were going to give me a free roadstar .. not that i wanted something but i think i got the idea when she said "thank you" over the phone

[GabAlmighty]

ICBC could make so much money if they weeded out all the "pleasure" insurance claims that go down... I ALWAYS make sure to get the correct school/work insurance

[beproud]

ouch, but thats the risk you take when you consider that option eh=(

[slicrick]

I think they deserve it, maybe not 200,000$ but there's a reason insurance rates are so high and people like this don't help. Inb4 racist it doesn't matter what colour, race or religion you are you shouldn't be able to do or get away with this kind of stuff hopefully it will scare a few people away from trying to lie about their claims or injuries

[hopalong]

That's 1 injustice put right...now only a few more thousand false claims to go

[Eff-1]

It is worth noting that most if that amount is the $135,000 paid to the other driver as part of an injury settlement. She must have been hurt fairly significantly.

If anyone wants to read the full judgment: 2013 BCSC 238 ICBC v. Panag

You never want to owe ICBC money. Can't renew your driver's license or ever buy insruance again until you settle your debt.

[Eff-1]

This guy tried to save a few hundred by declaring himself as principal operator instead of his son after buying a STI. But then son crashes Subaru and guess what, now ICBC refused to pay them $41,000 for the write off.

Burnaby NewsLeader - ICBC denies coverage for totalled sports car

[parm104]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

This guy tried to save a few hundred by declaring himself as principal operator instead of his son after buying a STI. But then son crashes Subaru and guess what, now ICBC refused to pay them $41,000 for the write off.

Burnaby NewsLeader - ICBC denies coverage for totalled sports car

I never fully understood the principle operator argument. As far as I know, the principle operator is the person that uses the car for 51% of the time. So basically, in one year, if you are listed as the principle operator, you need to be driving the vehicle for 6 months and a day sort to speak. Obviously that's a bad example but the point is that it's nearly impossible to prove that the person is not the principle operator unless for example, the car is a stick and the P.O. can't drive stick or if the P.O. is out of the country for the majority of the year...

That being said, how does ICBC PROVE that the listed P.O. is indeed NOT the actual P.O.? I don't imagine that simply saying that the vehicle is a sports car that a young person would drive or that the young person took pride in the vehicle would be sufficient evidence to prove that the young man was not the principle operator. It would certainly be compelling, but not a make or break situation...I suppose in the case cited above, the fact that the young man was making payments for the car himself and that his name was also on the title made it unusually suspicious. But as far as I know, suspicion and speculation are not enough! Also, as far as I know, it must be shown that the family KNEW at the time of issuing the insurance that the P.O. was the son. Also, very hard to prove...any thoughts?

Edit: I just realized that the doorknob son had admitted that he was the principle operator to ICBC before any legal matters proceeded.

Eff-1, I enjoyed reading this case, thank you!

[Energy]

Originally Posted by Eff-1

This guy tried to save a few hundred by declaring himself as principal operator instead of his son after buying a STI. But then son crashes Subaru and guess what, now ICBC refused to pay them $41,000 for the write off.

Burnaby NewsLeader - ICBC denies coverage for totalled sports car

[40] The 2005 Subaru WRX STI was an expensive, high performance vehicle, with 300 horsepower, a very prominent spoiler on the trunk and a large air intake scoop on the hood. This is the kind of car that would certainly appeal to a young man.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by parm104

I never fully understood the principle operator argument. As far as I know, the principle operator is the person that uses the car for 51% of the time. So basically, in one year, if you are listed as the principle operator, you need to be driving the vehicle for 6 months and a day sort to speak. Obviously that's a bad example but the point is that it's nearly impossible to prove that the person is not the principle operator unless for example, the car is a stick and the P.O. can't drive stick or if the P.O. is out of the country for the majority of the year...

That being said, how does ICBC PROVE that the listed P.O. is indeed NOT the actual P.O.? I don't imagine that simply saying that the vehicle is a sports car that a young person would drive or that the young person took pride in the vehicle would be sufficient evidence to prove that the young man was not the principle operator. It would certainly be compelling, but not a make or break situation...I suppose in the case cited above, the fact that the young man was making payments for the car himself and that his name was also on the title made it unusually suspicious. But as far as I know, suspicion and speculation are not enough! Also, as far as I know, it must be shown that the family KNEW at the time of issuing the insurance that the P.O. was the son. Also, very hard to prove...any thoughts?

Edit: I just realized that the doorknob son had admitted that he was the principle operator to ICBC before any legal matters proceeded.

Eff-1, I enjoyed reading this case, thank you!

also to remember the burden of proof isn't anything like a criminal case in civil cases

and as you noted the son admitted to being PO multiple times (so it wasn't simply a mistake/misunderstanding)

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by parm104

That being said, how does ICBC PROVE that the listed P.O. is indeed NOT the actual P.O.? I don't imagine that simply saying that the vehicle is a sports car that a young person would drive or that the young person took pride in the vehicle would be sufficient evidence to prove that the young man was not the principle operator. It would certainly be compelling, but not a make or break situation...I suppose in the case cited above, the fact that the young man was making payments for the car himself and that his name was also on the title made it unusually suspicious. But as far as I know, suspicion and speculation are not enough! Also, as far as I know, it must be shown that the family KNEW at the time of issuing the insurance that the P.O. was the son. Also, very hard to prove...any thoughts?

Edit: I just realized that the doorknob son had admitted that he was the principle operator to ICBC before any legal matters proceeded.

Eff-1, I enjoyed reading this case, thank you!

The funny thing is the judge ruled in ICBC's favour not because the son admitted in his statement he was the PO but ultimately he ruled it was a breach of the insurance policy because the father knowingly lied to ICBC upon purchasing the insurance when declaring the PO. He considered the things you mentioned like how the car was registered in the son's name, the son was the one making the payments, and also how the father already had a bunch of other cars he was the principle operator of. The father never test drove the car, nor did he take delivery of it at the dealership which is inconsistent with someone purchasing an expensive car for himself. The son did all that. The father didn't know much about the car itself, and plus the son posted photos of the car all over his facebook. At the end of the day, it's all factors to support the claim the car was purchased for the son, not for the dad.

Insurance Act defines principal operator as the one who drives majority of the time. There's no mention it having to be a specific percentage. So I guess the definition of majority could be debated. But in most of these cases it almost always boils down to balance of probability.

2012 BCSC 1226 Lau v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

[Klobbersaurus]

had some young punk customer who had an m3, lowered with rims, and a stereo deck, vehicle also had a sign hanging off the rear view mirror that said "i love lesbians", when the cops came because the stereo was stolen, they asked whos the car belonged too, the guy said my mom and the cop looked at him and said "your mom loves lesbians eh?"