| Glen P. Robbins -- Canada's most important consumer advocate presents |
| |
Nov 14, 2009 |
| Commentary |
| The Motor Vehicle Accident: |
| Immediately following an accident an individual's ability to note information is often restricted because of injuries or stress related to the accident. Nevertheless, this information is important and an injured person will want the best record possible. The insurance company will certainly exploit any deficiencies in a plaintiff's case -- normally from the point of the accident. |
| In accidents involving damage over a certain monetary amount or involving personal injury, the police ought to arrive (but often don't unless the accident is really catastrophic), however paramedics or the fire department likely will if one or more of the persons involved is not able to get out of the vehicle and move about. The relevance of the police is (if you are a victim in the accident),the potential for issuing tickets to 'guilty' parties (not your) which could help your cause down the road as you seek damages or compensation. |
| If you sense you are injured, you have an obligation from that point forward to do everything in your power to not make the injury worse. If you feel you may be injured, better to be safe than sorry -- let's get the paramedics and public safety officers to the scene. No matter, if you are injured you want immediate attention. |
| Even the oft villified so-called "whiplash" injuries can become worse without immediate attention. In addition, whiplash injuries more often than not metasasize (worsen) over time and the shock of the accident may blur the original injury. |
| If there isn't a chain of public safety invested of your accident, the assumption from the insurance adjustor is your claim for damages, if any, is minor. Think about it, the insurance business is supposed to be about paying claims -- fairly/ but unless they are government run, they are in business to make a profit--and no matter how one perceives the value of a monopoly (government run) in insurance (and I certainly do not)in any jurisdiction, no insurer wants to lose money. Any poorly run insurance organization -- or financial -- {as we have been unhappy witnesses to of late}--loses the public confidence. The Insurance Company may 'win' from time to time, but they may never lose. You want your settlement or court award to represent a win-win outcome for all parties, not a win lose with you the loser. If you are not as careful as you can be -- even though you may be the victim -- the insurance company will try to exploit you -- no matter what they advertise. |
| A deficiency in insurance policy that I have witnessed in British Columbia -- is the no crash -- no cash rule. I.C.B.C. brought in this onerous 'fairy-tale' policy in 1993. This rule simply means that if there is little monetary damage to your vehicle, then you musn't be injured. On it's face this sounds a little sinister, and in logic and in fact it has utterly no foundation -- but this won't stop the plethora of greedy engineers and others to encourage further make-work with stop and go mumbo jumbo which is often speculation at best, but often carries weight with the insurance companies and the courts, particularly when judges (who are generalists) don't know the difference. There are actually potential social issues implicit with the policy. Older vehicles have sturdier bumpers, new (Japanese vehicles) are safe, but in rear ends they fold and damage is always excessive, even in accidents assessed at under 5 miles per hour. So the person in an old beater with the steel bumper in an accident under 5-10 mph is thus 'likely not injured', while the rich person in the expensive Japanese model with the cave in rear bumper is injured, the latter more likely to be treated better by the insurance company, while the poorer hillbilly in the rusty old dodge treated like dirt -- because of their old car. Nice policy eh? This policy has deprived tens of thousands of British Columbians of their rightful entitlement to proper settlement -- (how about where you live?) |
| In addition, damage assessments for your vehicle may not be entirely consistent from one adjustor/assessor to another. It's a pain in the rear (for sure) but a few hundred dollars more damage to your vehicle is relevant to an insurance adjustor, not matter what they tell you. |
| That is why lawyers are always saying -- dont' talk to the adjustor -- however in terms of strategic handling, |
|
|
