[Newsbot]

Title: Insurer pays up after wife sues 'negligent' husband
Category: Strange
Posted By: wildrosegirl
Date: 2010-04-27 09:53:08
Canadian

[Benn]

Good on them. Act of God, geesh. God did not tell the dear to cross the street, the dear wanted to go eat on the other side or something and decided itself. Lighting rips form the sky and cuts down a tree that falls on your car, well now maybe that works for me. But either way, "act of God' is just "We don't like paying out" In evil insurance company terms. Nice to see someone stand up to insurance company rail-roading but in the end they have more cash and time than the woman suing, and will likely win, if even by attrition. I'm sure the husband also lied through his teeth though about how badly he was driving.

[Robair]

I HATE ICBC.

[TuavDan]

The family and lawyer's last name sound foreign! so would this be settled of it happened to Mr. & Mrs. Smith? The judge should have also ruled that since the driver was found "negligent," his family shoud be prevented from driving with him again.


"You can't be serious - you think the ethnicity of the claimants played out in this?"

Yes, I strongly believe that this counted for a percentage of this claim.

[andyt]

TuavDan TuavDan:

The family and lawyer's last name sound foreign! so would this be settled of it happened to Mr. & Mrs. Smith? The judge should have also ruled that since the driver was found "negligent," his family shoud be prevented from driving with him again.

You can't be serious - you think the ethnicity of the claimants played out in this?

Your idea sounds stupid to me - lots of people are found negligent, some even criminally. They've never been prevented from having certain people in their car, tho criminal negligence will certainly lose you your license for a while.

The headline is deceptive, Ickybicky is appealing the verdict, so nothing's settled yet. I find it strange that they would pay out if the deer had been a car that suddenly crossed the road in front of this family. And that act of God stuff - if you believe God acts to manage our affairs, then everything is an act of God. Act of nature would be more appropriate. But what if he'd come across a whole bunch of painted turtle juveniles crossing the road, and he skidded off the road - would ICBC pay out then?

[Richard]

Any time you have fender bender now days the first person you call is a lawyer. If you do not, chances are you will say something honest and it will cost you dearly. ICBC works on case history with every claim so you are dealt the same as the last case that was settled.

[Freakinoldguy]

Not that I like ICBC but because of a lack of information on the story, this whole thing is sounds more like one of those rear end collision scams than an actual accident.

[Brenda]

I don't get why "The act of God" wasn't enough to take to court? As far as I know, that would not hold up since the law is not based on religion...

[QBall]

People here really should learn to read actual cases instead of relying on the spin of CBC. First off the wife was not suing ICBC, she was suing her husband (the case is Freidooni v Freidooni). ICBC being the insurer has to pay for a defence for the husband (as the owner of the vehicle), because that is what they and any other insurance company is contractually obligated to do. Therefore whatever defense is presented is what the defense lawyer is presenting. Second no where in the case does the words "Act of God" come up. This is a CBC editor trying to make the story more interesting. The actual defense was:

$1:

[21] The defendant submits that it has not been proven that the defendant had time to take effective evasive action “when the situation was recognizable as being dangerous,” and refers to Brewster v. Swain 2007 BCCA 347. In Curre v. Fitt, Mr. Justice A.F. Wilson of this court exonerates a defendant from negligence, in circumstances where the defendant was operating a motor vehicle at 50 kilometres per hour in a 30 kilometre per hour speed zone. Wilson J. concludes that even if the vehicle had been going 30, the accident would still have occurred. The collision was with a child who ran out onto the road in front of a vehicle.

[22] In Fajardo v. Horianopoulos 2006 BCSC 147, Madam Justice Ross dismisses an action against a motorist whose vehicle struck a deer. She finds that the collision was not caused by any negligence or want of care on the part of the motor vehicle operator. She finds that he was not driving at an excessive speed “given the conditions” and that he was not negligent in failing to see the moose earlier than he did.

[23] The defendant submits that it has not been shown that the deer did not emerge from cover in the median of the roadway, and that since neither the plaintiff nor the defendant saw the deer before the collision, it cannot be inferred that the defendant could have seen the deer in sufficient time to avoid the impact.

What I don't get is any ICBC auto policy covers medical care or financial support for injuries sustained in a crash. To me a wife suing a husband (especially when the wife and husband are still together) reeks of collusion to milk this accident. Of course now that a judge has ruled the husband liable his rates are going to go up.

[andyt]

Actually the story said that ICBC originally would not pay out under the husband's policy, because they deemed it an act of God. Same thing if a big boulder falls on your car (as has happened on the Sea to Sky Highway) - that's an act of God and not insurable. So the wife had to sue hubby, ie ICBC, and come up with a creative reason why she should be able to sue.

[QBall]

andyt andyt:

Actually the story said that ICBC originally would not pay out under the husband's policy, because they deemed it an act of God. Same thing if a big boulder falls on your car (as has happened on the Sea to Sky Highway) - that's an act of God and not insurable. So the wife had to sue hubby, ie ICBC, and come up with a creative reason why she should be able to sue.

No where in the decision does it say anything about ICBC denying accident benefits. The wife probably wanted a lump sum instead of the accident benefits provided under the policy since she would have only received loss of income and rehabilitation/medical expenses, which is what anyone would receive. Any insurance company would have fought this case. Any insurer would have felt that their client was not liable because a deer ran onto the road. That is why they chose to fight it in court.
BTW if you are in a province with no fault benefits (i.e. B.C., Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, etc) injuries suffered from an accident from a boulder falling on your vehicle is indeed covered. The damages to the vehicle would be covered if you had Comprehensive coverage if the boulder fell onto the vehicle, or Collision coverage if you hit the boulder after it fell. Act of God is a legal term, not an insurance term. You will never see 'Act of God' written in any insurance policy.

[andyt]

QBall QBall:

Act of God is a legal term, not an insurance term. You will never see 'Act of God' written in any insurance policy.

I did not know this - I thought Act of God was standard insurance wording. Say you insure your house, they would exclude floods, earth quacke etc under the heading act of God.

[QBall]

andyt andyt:

QBall QBall:

Act of God is a legal term, not an insurance term. You will never see 'Act of God' written in any insurance policy.

I did not know this - I thought Act of God was standard insurance wording. Say you insure your house, they would exclude floods, earth quacke etc under the heading act of God.

Nope. I'll give you an excerpt from one of my insurance company's policy wordings when it comes to Earthquake in a Homeowner's policy:

$1:

We do not insure loss or damage caused by or resulting from:

(9) snowslide, earthquake, landslide, or any other earth movement. If any of these results in fire or explosion, “we” will pay only for the resulting loss or damage;

This is found in the section entitled 'Insured Perils'. This wordings used to exclude earthquakes and land movement is pretty standard in the industry and is found in all Homeowner's policies (coverage can be added back by endorsement). Insurance policies have to be very specific in terms of what is insured and what is not. 'Act of God' is too vague. The term works in a courtroom setting because a judge knows what 'Act of God' means in a common sense way. An insurance policy is a contract. If an insurance contract contains vague wordings or undefined terms then a judge is going to interpret the policy in a way that will favour the insured. So an insurance company wants to remove vague concepts and ensure specific wordings are used, which is why most people find their policies too boring to read.