your wife's insurance policy gets sued as a result of this incident. ICBC "jumps in her shoes" to defend her.

Is not that hard to fake injuries if you have the time. Just go to the doctors like once or twice a week and keep saying this hurt and that hurt and you can't sleep blah blah blah.

There are lawyers who live on ICBC claims because is easy money.

yeah, just contact ICBC, they will fight against the guy on behalf of your wife.

Just did a quick Google search :suspicious:

Why Frequent Doctor Visits Do Not Increase The Value of Personal Injury Claims | ICBC Personal Injury Claims Lawyer Erik Magraken | Victoria & Vancouver Island BC

Why Frequent Doctor Visits Don't Increase The Value Of Personal Injury Claims

As previously discussed, frequent doctor visits in and of themselves add no value to a personal injury claim. Seeing a doctor simply to ‘paper’ a personal injury claim really does nothing to add to the amount of compensation a claimant is entitled to receive not to mention that it creates a costly and unnecessary burden on the medical system. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating that medical visits to address ‘inconsequential‘ matters with a view to assisting a personal injury claim are frowned upon.

In this week’s case (Hough v. Wyatt) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 collision. He sued seeking over $350,000 in damages. The Court largely rejected the Plaintiff’s claim finding that while the collision did cause some injuries these were little more than a ‘minor degree‘ of aggravation of pre-existing injuries. Non-Pecuniary damages of $15,000 were assessed.

In the course of the judgement Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein had provided the following critical comments:

[9] Mr. Hough was a very difficult witness. He is a poor historian, which is understandable given his extensive medical history. However, he bears the burden of proof. He was argumentative, abrasive, sometimes rude, often unresponsive, and many times inconsistent in his evidence. Mr. Hough clearly demonstrates an attitude of entitlement to insurance benefits, at one point indicating he doesn’t understand the problem here, it is only insurance money. He reports everything, no matter how inconsequential, even a broken fingernail, so if there is a problem in the future, he can get compensation. The trouble for Mr. Hough is he was a medical disaster before the accident, and the defendant is not obliged to pay for all that ails him or ailed him. Mr. Hough’s pre-existing medical condition, his original position, as outlined in the evidence of Dr. Waiz, and what Mr. Hough can recall, would have manifested debilitating effects in any event, regardless of the accident. His original condition would have detrimentally affected him even absent the defendant’s negligence. The defendant is not required to compensate him for debilitating effects not caused by the accident….

[14] Dr. Waiz’s evidence is unsatisfactory on many levels, not the least of which his manner in which he managed Mr. Hough’s care with increasing doses of narcotics. His records are unreliable. He blames computer programs and computer generated forms. He has been willing to fill out reports to benefit Mr. Hough, for example, claiming all Mr. Hough’s drugs were WCB-related so Mr. Hough could be compensated, and claiming a wrist fracture was a WCB injury due to ongoing weakness and pain in his right leg. This is the same broken wrist that Mr. Hough now claims was caused by the accident for the same reason. Where it has suited Mr. Hough, Dr. Waiz has reported to WCB Mr. Hough is unable to work in any capacity. Now he was reporting to this court that, because of the accident, Mr. Hough cannot work. The concern is he is parroting what Mr. Hough wants him to say.

While it is true that serious injuries warrant higher damage awards than minor injuries and that serious injuries typically result in more medical appointments, the mere number of doctor’s visits in and of themselves do not assist in valuing a personal injury claim. You can click here for a short discussion addressing the factors Court’s often consider when assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering) in a BC personal injury lawsuit.

Here's another one
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/tag/medical-marijuana

Frequency of Doctor Visits

The last point of interest deals with the Plaintiff’s frequency of doctor’s visits I have canvassed this topic previously. In this week’s case the Plaintiff pointed to having 128 doctor visits as supporting his claim for injury. The Court, however, found that there was no reasonable justification for this and instead came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was simply papering his claim. The following observation was made by Justice Sigurdson:

[65] Up to June 2012, the plaintiff saw Dr. Irene Chan, a general practitioner, 128 times for his injuries. From July 8, 2008 to June 2012, the complaints he made to her were virtually the same on each occasion. Dr. Chen was not called as an expert witness but testified simply with respect to some of the observations she made…

[107] It is difficult to know what to make of the fact that the plaintiff attended his general practitioner for 128 visits and appears to have repeated his symptoms almost without change on each visit. He explained in his testimony that he went to his doctor to report changes in his condition; however his doctor noted each of his attendances with the plaintiff reporting no changes. The evidence left me with the impression that the plaintiff was creating a record of his injuries for his claim as there appears to be no reasonable medical justification for the number of attendances before his family doctor. Rather than supporting his credibility, this evidence of the numerous attendances on his family doctor left me with the opposite impression.

u need a calculator to tell u that ur number clearly made no sense?

moral of the story? When you're gonna hit someone, make it count.

Instead of raising rates. Why doesn't icbc make it cheaper for drivers to purchase insurance if you buy a finevu camera.

This way, any small fender benders would be dismissed as fraud for the claimer.

But we should be proactively putting camera's on are our cars so are family members don't get sued by scammers.

Lol, am I the only one that saw the title and went, "F#$%, insurance rates are going up by 26%!!!!" :fuuuuu: :heckno:

Then read the article and saw that insurance rates HAD ALREADY gone up by 26% since 2003. Not that it's much better. :okay:

Cars aren't built to be disposable - they're built to be sacrificial. For example, crumple zones are designed to absorb the impact of a collision so the forces applied to passengers are reduced.

Bottom line is cars are replaceable, people are not. Better to have a $30k car thrown away and passengers with minor injuries than a car that's still repairable and a passenger with $100K (or more) in medical bills and on-going physical therapy.

It is unbelievably expensive to "repair" people.

Shouldn't ICBC be a revenue neutral government insurance company?
Why are profits being siphoned out and used in other government expenditures.

Stupid rhetorical question I know...

PLEASE post the picture of the driver sitting on the chair after the crash

yes, because no one actually read the article and took the threat title as fact for an easy way to jump into an ICBC shitting thread

I never understood why there was a ceiling for discounts. There should be no ceiling so if you're a good driver, you should have the opportunity to be insured for free one day by all the other dumb ass drivers that cause the accidents and claims. Make those people pay more to get their vehicles insured. There should be REAL incentives for people who are claim free. Fuck this 42% discount BS, gimme 100% discount. That's just my opinion.

The same amount of energy is going into the car, so crumple zones or not the car is going to sustain roughly the same amount of damage, the crumple zones just help to ensure that the damage is directed away from the passengers.

lol thats not how insurance work; the point of insurance is to pool and share the risk. There is always a non-zero probability that you might cause an accident as long as you are on the road. 100% discount means others are paying for your risk for free.

100% discount , thats not how monopolies work.

I think vehicle black boxes should start tracking accelerometer data. If you want to sue, be prepared to provide the data.

Even if you are not causing any accidents, there are still administrative costs so why would you get a 100% discount?

Regardless, it only takes one costly accident with a payout in the millions to wipe out everything you've ever paid into the system.

I work in the insurance industry, underwriting car insurance is part of my job.
Gold-coloured colloras, SUV are what we highly preferred.

We got Maybach, Bentley, Ferrari, Lambo application all the time, these are the models we send inspectors to check out the car.

+1

They already discount for a passive immobilizer, why not discount for a camera if you agree to surrender the video if you make a claim or a claim is made against you?

Because icbc makes more money when accidents are 50/50 and they can raise both rates.

How does having cam help icbc save money?
Cam doesn't prevent accidents, and icbc doesn't give a sht who is at fault, as long as someone takes the fault

It depends.

If you hit a kid in school zone today, you'll be in a lot of shit and parents are gonna sue your ass for multi million $$$.

It's even worse if your car is relatively flashy, have exhaust, etc.
Witness are gonna tell ICBC and Police you were driving like a complete idiot, you are going to have a criminal charge for mischief in public, etc.

Trust me, witness will actually tell everyone that you were driving aggressively, surf on Youtube and other car websites, people post videos how single dashcam saved their ass.

It is going to save ICBC a lot of money because your dashcam shows a kid running into the road without even looking and you had absolutely no time to stop within distance.

I see your point there