Questionable Issue with ICBC.
 

So long story short I'm in a debate with ICBC, and the 3rd party and these are the notes;

Party A - them
Party B - me


Party A cuts Party B off and brake checks them.

Party B re-ends Party A.

Party B moves over and motions for Party A to pull over with witnesses.

Party A moves slowly over then decides to pin the gas and leave the scene despite making visual and verbal contact.

High speed chase across the alex fraser bridge while on the phone with deas island police...

Party A gets arrested, and charged with failure to stop at an MVA.

Party B seeks ICBC immediately and processes all the paperwork.

Party A does not respond to letters and phone calls from ICBC for 90+ days.

-----

Today I get a phonecall from ICBC stating that there isnt enough evidence to show that Party A cut me off which initiated an MVA; it was a catch 22, to stay with witnesses and get shafted cause of no info on Party A or chase the bitch and catch her.

So now Im getting stiffed with a deductable and an increase in insurance...stn like $350 over a 7 yr period.
Im choked atm, with just the fact of the principle driver and principle owner ( Party A, two different people) have failed to respond numerous times via phone/letters from ICBC....

I believe this shows their negilence to the entire MVA...shouldnt running away from a MVA enough evidence to state that she knew she was at fault?

Its not even about the deductible now (500)....its about the principle of doing a hit/run and getting away.

My file is currently under review again by a 2nd Manager at the Richmond Branch... I find this whole situation a little bit one sided.
I even brought up the fact of small claims court, and the manager stated that ICBC will represent Party A but not Party B when summoned to court before a judge...WTF.
Any one have their 2cents to chime in with?

Hate to be "that" guy, but it seems like a cheap dash cam could have saved you from all the hassle.. :(

*goes and mounts one on all four corners of my car*

Without a witness, you are 100% screwed. You rear-ended somebody, you are automatically at fault unless you can prove a substantiating circumstance and without a witness you may as well quit fighting and get on with life.

Mark

Yeah, this is what Im sure of as well. Its a terrible thought; but ultimately the truth....makes you want to start your own vigilanty justice sometimes...

sometimes I wonder that during the chase if I nudged her into the wall or ditch would the outcome be in my favor....:rukidding:

ICBC will always be on the defendant's (person at fault) side. It's a business, that's how they could lose the least amount of money possible.


and true to that, the motor vehicle act states that in a collusion where one rear ends the other, the party in the rear will always be at fault. I'm sorry if I haven't comprehended your story well enough but it sounds like ICBC could just say that your at fault simply for following too close and not providing enough space between you and whatever vehicle was in front of you, provided you have no evidence other than your word of how Party A drove in front of you, and even then I have a feeling that ICBC will rule it 50-50 maybe 60-40? Who knows.




Goodluck!

well what you could do is go out and post up some signs around the area where it happened looking for witnesses. then a week later have someone you know contact ICBC and give a statement saying that they saw the whole thing validating your story. that should resolve your issues, just dont get caught

yikes, I dont think I can come to that kind of conclusion...That would seriously put me into a diff category....lol

Was this on your way to work? Post up some signs anyway. It'll be a long shot but maybe your witnesses will see it on their daily commute and get back to you.

Otherwise, you might just have to let this go. Next time just snap a picture of their plate asap so that if they run off you can just stay with your witnesses and not worry about it.