Cassells Insurance Ltd.Your Recreational Insurance Specialist!Call Ena or Paul @ 604-876-0126 / Toll Free 1-877-531-1444
454 W.Broadway, Van., B.C. (& Yes we have parking!)
I Read the article.
So, in the first case: The plaintiff was uninsured (because he did not have a valid license despite paying for insurance) and had a 4 million claim reduced to only 200,000? That's insane.
Similarly, if the defendant were to do the same damage to a pedestrian who has not paid for vehicle insurance, that pedestrian would've received the full 4 million. Seems to me that the difference between the pedestrian and the striken driver is that the driver was operating his vehicle illegally.
It does sure seem like the reduction in 4 mill to 200k was punishment for driving with a recently expired license. Is that right? Doesn't seems so to me especially when the striken driver was largely not at fault.
was it Shakespear, who once coined the term "The law is an a__" ...
Charles Dickens? Oliver Twist?
..."reduced BY approximatly $200,000..."
4 million - 15% - 200,000 = 3.2 million... Still a ton of money... but I would rather have my mobility and health!
Good eyes. Reduced by $200,000 and reduced to $200,000 are significantly different...."reduced BY approximatly $200,000..."
The Plaintiff was also held 15% liable by the learned judge.A pedestrian in BC, struck and injured by a liable motorist, is entitled to Part 7 Benefits, making your argument moot.Similarly, if the defendant were to do the same damage to a pedestrian who has not paid for vehicle insurance, that pedestrian would've received the full 4 million.
The issue for the motorcyclist may be "he was operating a vehicle while not authorized and qualified to do so," thus disentitling him to Part 7 benefits.
The courts uphold the law. The insurers are held to their contractual obligations. If the motorist doesn't fulfill his/her contractural obligations...well then this is the result.
I'm not a lawyer, but the law changes over time, legislation that oversees insurers also changes over time.
The future loss of earning capacity was $1,240,400 less 15% for the plaintiff's negligence = $1,054,340. That number is calculated and given in "today's" money - in other words, it is the current value of something that is paid in the future.
The $2,000,000 for cost of future care is reduced by the 15% and comes in at $1,700,000.
From those figures you subtract the amounts you are entitled to under Part 7 benefits and you come in at $1,011,150 and $1,569,550 respectively.
So instead of the $2,754,340 under those two heads of damage, the plaintiff gets $2,580,700, a difference of $173,640.
The reason is this: the defendant will not be held liable for those benefits which you are entitled to pursuant to Part 7. The thing with this situation is that the deduction is made, BUT the plaintiff is not entitled to Part 7 benefits (due to being an unlicensed driver).
He was awarded a total of $3,841,563.59 and from that you subtract $576,234.54 for his negligence (15%) and another $173,640 for being unlicensed, for a total deduction of just under $750,000.
Out of the total award, $327,100 (less 15%) was awarded for "pain and suffering". Think about that for a minute. With that money you could buy a Porsche GT2 RS. This person lost the use of his legs, and every problem that comes with that - and there are MANY, and that is what his pain and suffering is worth. Not to mentioned a decreased life expectancy. The rest of the money is money that he would have earned had it not been for the accident and money to cover expenses that he will incur due to the accident.
No matter what you get net, you are still better off if the accident never happened and changed your life.
Long Live Shervin Of The North!