Another new low...
 

ICBC not renewing licences of injured clients who cannot afford to pay court and legal fees related to their cases.

Truck driver loses licence - News Hour - Videos | Global BC



And since there are two sides to every story, can anyone fill me in on what the other side could be? Why is ICBC tying court costs related to injury cases to licence renewal?

If you take ICBC to court and loose (which is who you are taking to court when you sue the other person since ICBC is their insurer), you are held liable for their legal fees just like you would be if you were to sue anyone else. You don't pay = you don't get your license back. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You also have to remember, that ICBC is a govt. corp. So you owe ICBC, you owe the govt. Read the back of your license, it clearly states that you must surrender it at any time when requested.

My dad went through a 9 year long legal battle with ICBC (who he ironically works for at Head Office in N.Van) and all this was explained to me a while ago. We discussed the pluses/negatives of going to court as a family and decided it was worth the risk given that he has perminant physical damage to his prominent arm. Lucky he ended up winning the case, got a much larger settlement and things worked out. But had he lost, we would have been in a very similar situation. And don't cry bias because he works there, trust me... ICBC are dicks to everyone wether you work for them or not. It was a LONG 9 years.

They cut his payment in HALF. Nice looking house he is filmed walking out of... maybe put that up for sale? Really, all people expect these days is handouts. So fucking frustrating.

I thought if the guy wasn't at fault, ICBC would just pay him and make the other guy pay. That's how it works, isn't it?

And the woman, isn't the one rear end is always at fault.

I'd have to say that story is such a spin column and is entirely one-sided.

99% of the time, yes, but not always.

Of course it is - that the media doing their job... selling papers.

I have never heard of anyone "losing" a case. if you were injured, you were injured, unless you were caught bullshitting/fraud. Most of the time, when you take ICBC to court, it isn't a matter of whether you are right or wrong, it is usually over settlement of how much you will be compensated.

So you like the idea that if someone loses a court case against ICBC, they lose their licence until they can afford to pay ICBC's expenses?

You're more of a communist than I thought.

I like the idea of having the full story before making a snap judgement.

Apparently you're willing to simply take any story that paints "the system" in a bad light at face value.

The story on the news about the Gibson lady was that she was stopped at a stop sight at the bottom of a really steep hill and she was read ended by a car that couldn't stop in time. She went to court trying to ask for $125K and ICBC lawyered up and was able to argue there was oil on the road and the judge decided no one was at fault so now the lady on the hook for $42K which is what the court cost. Of course this is what the news said the other night.

The truck driver in OP's story had basically the same thing happen to him, but they reduced it to $28K.

icbc are a bunch of faggots, my sister got hit by a SUV while crossing in the cross walk and she had the walk sign(she only weighs 100lbs) about 4 or 5 years ago and she hasnt been able to work or have much of a social life or anything. the case is just about to be settled and icbc lawyer appeals it because he thinks she is getting too much money and it could take up to 2 more years....:bullshit:

Don't forget, all insurance companies are like this. It's not personal, or just ICBC being a dink.

Insurance companies don't make money by over paying insurance/injury claims. This is the reality.

Interesting how that doesn't fall under "driving too fast for the conditions".

What about the people who cannot stop in time because they hit a patch of black ice and rear end someone? Or slide through an intersection and trigger a red light camera ticket?

Perhaps this case sets a precedent that just because they were driving too fast for the conditions doesn't mean they should be held accountable for it.

man she got hit by a suv who wasnt fucking paying attention couldnt work because of head injuries oh and did i mention she cant even break her fall because she has no arms....they gave them 30 days to appeal and in the last few days he appeals cuz he thinks she is getting too much ???

It'd be nice to be able to look at their judgements, and see how the court came to their decision. I believe this is the risk of taking your claim to court. The decision can get turned on you. Without seeing the court documents, it's hard to determine which party sued the other, and make an opinion on how the cases were rendered.

For all we know, these people turned down generous out of court settlements, tried to go for bigger money, and got pwned by better lawyers than their own.

According to the news, the lady who was rear-ended sued the other driver and that driver had the help of ICBC's lawyers.

Don't know anyother details since the news didn't talk about it.

Same thing with OP's story. The news never mentioned how the court decided the other driver was not at fault.

Maybe you guys need to go to the news about this since it is the flavour of the day. "Girl with no arms gets hit by a car and now is being screwed by ICBC". I'm sure the news will love it.

I'm just curious what job she had since she has no arms.

some job along the lines of Secretary in a lawyers office, but after the accident she could not think straight.

I'm feeling this is the case, unless there are other details not being spinned by the media.

Actually, I'm looking now, and this was posted before my reply:

Do you have a source, SumAznGuy? It looks like my assessment agrees with your information.

Unless you have a serious injury that ICBC is trying to gyp you on, then settling out of court is usually the best way to go for these things. Sure, bargain a bit to try and get a better amount, but you should really just take the money and run. They must've thought they had ICBC by the balls. Looks like this wasn't the case.

OP... this is more like, "another new low" in regards to the media and their one-sided reporting.

News Hour: Aug 17 - News Hour - Videos | Global BC

It is the first story.

^^^

Thanks! The Gibson lady got pwn'd. I wonder what numbers were being tossed around before this, finally, went to court. Man, I'd really like to read the court docs.

Welcome to loser pays.

Even if you are successful in your case, are found largely not at fault, or for that matter, not at fault at all, and to opt to continue with the trial, law and ICBC settlement paperwork demands the plaintiff covers costs and disbursements if they reject a settlement. It is a lot more complicated than that, but from reading it is Rule 37B (Recently renamed Rule 9-1)

Happens when the settlement offer is higher than the award given and/or the judges find reason that the plaintiff should not have pursued the matter past the settlement stage.

I still feel that in no way should your eligibility for a driver's licence be tied to injury lawsuits.

It's not. They decided to sue the other driver for more $$$ from ICBC. They lost and are now on the hook for the court fees. Can't pay the fees, you lose your license. While it may seem not fair in this case, it does when people do not pay their traffic fines. Same thing can be said if they do pass legislation so that ICBC can collect unpaid parking tickets.