Most of these documents are provided courtesy of the Queen's Printer. They are for private study or research purposes only. You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page. Auto insurance Basic auto insurance Optional coverage Buy or renew your insurance What affects your premiums? Cancel your insurance Commercial insurance Moving and your insurance Driving outside of B. Coverage for luxury vehicles.
Division 6. Part 4 — Driver's Certificates. Driver's certificate incorporated in licence. Rounding and prorating of premiums and refunds. Part 5 — Conditions of Certificate. Limit of liability — loans and advance payments. Restrictions on indemnity — attached equipment. Part 7 — Accident Benefits. Disability benefits for employed persons.Is ICBC ready to crack down on good drivers?
Employment during total disability. Payments under Workers Compensation Act. Power to terminate benefits for refusal to undergo treatment or training. Transitional — disability benefits, funeral expenses and death benefits.
Statutes and regulations
Transitional — medical or rehabilitation benefits. Part 10 — First Party Coverage. Division 2 — Underinsured Motorist Protection. Underinsured motorist protection for garage vehicle certificate holders. Part 11 — Additional Product Certificates. Compulsory coverages provided by garage vehicle certificates. Garage vehicle certificates are primary insurance. Part 12 — Fleetplan.
British columbia auto insurance act
Designation of fleet operator and fleet identity number. Disclosure of fleet identity number. Cancellation of insurance on bankruptcy or winding up. Part 13 — Optional Insurance Contracts. However, in exercising discretion the court will likely look at the policy concerns behind the usual rule in each case.
In Aviva, for example, the insurer made an unopposed petition to the court for a declaration that it could pay out claims in a non-motor vehicle context without exposing itself to liability beyond its limits. The court confirmed the insurer could do so using the first-to-the-post method. The court was impressed that the insurer in that case went to some lengths to identify potential claimants — including some infants — and gave them an opportunity to come forward. There is nothing to indicate the steps taken by the insurer in Aviva are obligations on an insurer but these are potential factual issues one could use to differentiate Aviva from another first-to-the-post limits case.
In Condominium Plan No. Kolbuck, SKQB — a non-motor vehicle case — the Saskatchewan Court of Queen Bench explicitly used its statutory discretion to allow a pro rata sharing of proceeds between two claimants while stating a third claimant was subject to the first-to-the-post regime. The reasons for the decision are fact-specific and based on the governing legislation, which does give explicit discretion to the court regarding the allocation of insurance funds.
The court essentially relaxed the first-to-the-post regime for one claimant who diligently pursued her claim but not for another who did not. For non-motor vehicle claims, the first-past-the-post system is the default, but an insurer should be wary of settling where limits are in issue and where there is legitimate concern that a diligent claimant may be deprived of funds.
British Columbia Auto Insurance
In such a case, a pre-emptive application or petition as in Aviva is advisable. A court may also be able to deviate from the pro rata method in a motor vehicle claim; however, the circumstances under which a court might do so are less clear.
In Pozzi, the Court of Appeal deliberately left this question unanswered. In the Supreme Court the limit was divvied up other than by the pro rata method. The Court of Appeal ruled that the pro rata division of that limit applied; but, writing for the court, Donald J. Much argument was addressed to the subject of discretion.
The discretion is said to arise from the words in s. The other side concedes that pro rata is the usual formula, but says it can be deviated from in special cases of which this case is an example. In my view we need not pronounce definitively on the question of discretion. Assuming without deciding that the chambers judge had the discretion to choose a formula other than pro rata, I would nevertheless hold that the distribution in this case was not a valid exercise of the discretion.
In practice insurers often have knowledge of all potential claims arising from an occurrence prior to judgment or settlement because claimants must bring their actions within the limitation period.
This is not always the case however; hasty settlements can trigger obligations to indemnify other victims in excess of insurance limits. The most challenging situations for insurers are those in which claims may be made many years, or even decades, after the occurrence.
This paper will examine two scenarios in which this might occur.
Below are links to the statutes and regulations of B.C. as they apply to ICBC. Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act (This version is in effect up to and including May 31 .
The first situation is the challenge created in managing infant claims, and the second is the troubling judicial creation of indivisible injury and the resulting joint liability among tortfeasors. Generally, actions for personal injury damages must be brought within two years following the accident, or the claim will be statute barred Limitation Act, SBCc.
However, minors are not subject to a two year limitation period because of ss. The two year limitation period for a minor does not start to run until the minor turns 19 years old. Insurers and defence counsel should be aware that the postponement provisions related to minors in the Limitation Act do not apply to claims brought pursuant to Part 7 of the Insurance Vehicle Regulations see Marin v.
Furthermore, the Insurance Company Vehicle Liability Insurance Regulation, BC Reg. 84/91, which is a regulation enacted under the Financial Institutions Act. Comparison Between Alberta and BC's Auto Insurance Systems. .. The Insurance Act mandates that all eligible drivers who require auto. Insurance (Vehicle) Act [includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 60/ Part 3 — Premiums for Universal Compulsory Vehicle Insurance.
Insurance Corp. Assume two vehicles are involved in a collision. Vehicle one contains a driver D1 and a passenger who is a baby M1.
Vehicle two contains only a driver D2. Assume there is no question that D2 is fully liable for all of the losses suffered by D1 and M1. The risk to insurers in this situation arises from the lengthy time which may pass before a minor commences legal proceedings.
However, the possibility remains that M1 could make a substantial claim some 18 years in the future. In such circumstances an insurer cannot be certain that the limit of its indemnity obligation to D1 and M1 is the policy limit. The best practice to protect the insurer from this type of exposure is to issue a Notice to Proceed under the Limitation Act early in the claim to start the limitation period running, and to force the minor to commence a lawsuit before he or she turns 19 years old.
By issuing a Notice to Proceed, a potential defendant can start the two year limitation period running before the minor turns 19 years old. The procedure for issuing a Notice to Proceed is set out in sections 10, 18 and 20 of the Limitation Act. The requirements of a Notice to Proceed are technical and must be strictly complied with.
Counsel must be aware of the requirements for Public Guardian and Trustee approval of settlements if the plaintiff is a minor at the time of settlement. The use of the first-to-the-post method when a pro rata allocation of insurance money is required and the failure to issue a Notice to Proceed when minors are involved are two possible situations when an insurer has to provide compensation in excess of the policy limits.
Another situation could be when a previously compensated injury is alleged to be part of a new indivisible injury. The decision in Athey v Leonati,  3 S. Indivisible injuries are a logical conclusion from the policy, confirmed in Athey, that tortfeasors are liable for all injuries caused or contributed to by their negligence.
This means that an insurer that has settled a claim for a back injury may have liabilities if that injury is later aggravated. An insurer may become liable when the insured is named directly by the plaintiff or when the insured is brought in as a third party defendant by an alleged joint tortfeasor, and it may include the duty to defend the insured, an obligation to compensate a victim for their loss, and the obligation to contribute to a joint tortfeasor.
The risk of the preceding scenario arising is, as yet, hypothetical as we have not found any case law specifically addressing the point; however, as the common law continues to evolve, we may yet see a case arguing the point, especially where there is a paucity of readily available insurance. An insurer cannot protect itself from the risk of liability for an indivisible injury through any of the techniques described above: In a BC Ferries Agreement the claimant accepts the risk of under-compensation due to the settlement agreement.
The inclusion of a covenant not to sue instead of a release is theoretically for the benefit of the settling claimant. A covenant not to sue is used to prevent the triggering of the common law rule that a release of one joint tortfeasor is a release of all tortfeasors and it should allow the plaintiff to maintain the action against the other tortfeasors.
For the benefit of the insurer the covenant not to sue should include any claims derived from the vulnerability created by the settled injury. This means that it should apply to a future indivisible injury because, as stated in Aschcroft v.
The waiver of any claim to damages should protect the insurer from any liability for contribution to a joint tortfeasor for a future indivisible injury. Contribution is founded on the claim that a joint tortfeasor who is not obligated to compensate a victim is unjustly enriched by the compensation provided by another tortfeasor in excess of their apportioned fault. The duty to defend would probably still be triggered if there is an alleged indivisible injury.
The Insurance Council of B.C. is mandated by the Financial Institutions Act to administer Insurance Act; Motor Vehicle Act; Insurance (Vehicle) Act; Insurance . Mandatory third-party liability coverage protects an insured British Columbia driver Regardless of where you live in Canada, auto insurance is required by law. "certificate" means a certificate of universal compulsory vehicle insurance issued Corporation of British Columbia continued by the Insurance Corporation Act;.
However, if there is a BC Ferries agreement in place the exposure of the insurer to compensate the victim or contribute to a joint tortfeasor is limited and the cost incurred as a result of the duty to defend can be successfully managed.
The benefits provided by a BC Ferries Agreement are extensive but there is the possibility that an insurer will be involved in an allegation of an injury when there is no BC Ferries Agreement in place. The first thing that an insurer should do when a personal injury claim is made is determine whether the alleged injury may be indivisible.
(2) This Act does not apply to or in respect of. (a) a contract of marine insurance within the meaning of the Marine Insurance Act (Canada), or. (b) vehicle. (2) and (3) of the Interpretation Act do not apply in respect of renewal of an owner's certificate, and an owner's. Changes to the current scheme in British. Columbia. + Bill 20 (Insurance (Vehicle ) Amendment Act). + $5, cap on non-pecuniary damages.
It if could be an indivisible injury the insurer should add any potential joint tortfeasors as third parties.