Sentences with phrase «icbc claim was brought»

Not exact matches

ICBC argued she should not be awarded costs as the action could have been brought in small claims court.

That is, where the vehicle damage is slight ICBC Claims lawyers defending such actions typically make a point of bringing this fact to the courts attention hoping that the court will find that «no compensible» injuries occurred.

This is a good judgement for Plaintiffs bringing ICBC claims, particularly those involved in Low Velocity Impacts (LVI's) where ICBC denies that injury occurred.

If ICBC is not fulfilling their duty as your insurer you can bring a claim of bad faith against ICBC.

In Bulatovic v. Siebert, the Plaintiff was injured as a pedestrian when crossing the street on a crosswalk, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for damages such as pain and suffering, income loss, diminished earning capacity, and cost of future care.

For example, if a plaintiff with soft tissue injuries brings an ICBC claim to trial and is awarded $ 30,000 and ICBC's formal settlement offer was $ 10,000, the Plaintiff would be entitled to «Costs» in addition to the $ 30,000 (barring any unusual developments at trial).

This recognzes the fact that there are legal fees involved in bringing most ICBC claims to trial and one of the purposes of Costs is to off - set these to an extent.

In Combs v. Bergen, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and brought an ICBC claim against the Defendant for damages for pain and suffering, wage loss, diminished earning capacity, and cost of future.

As a result of this sub-rule, people who bring an ICBC claim to trial in BC Supreme Court and are awarded less than $ 25,000, may be disentitled to their Tariff Costs unless they can show «sufficient reason for bringing the proceeding in the Supreme Court.»

In Kilian v. Valentin, the Plaintiff was injured in a rear - end collision, and brought an ICBC claim for damages.

In Russell v. Parks, the Plaintiff was injured in a car accident, and brought an ICBC claim for several heads of damages, including pain and suffering, cost of future care, diminished earning capacity, and past diminished earning capacity.

My words of caution are as follows: If the driver was not safe (I'm not talking about driving like a maniac here, I'm talking about driving less than carefully for the winter driving conditions) and you give ICBC the alternate impression with a view towards helping the driver out, the result may be severely damaging your ability to bring a tort claim.

However, Justice Vickers concluded that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have brought her claim in Supreme Court for two reasons: (1) when the action was commenced, the plaintiff believed she was suffering from the accident and her pleadings included a claim for loss of earning capacity and disruption of the ability to earn income; and (2) ICBC put her credibility seriously in issue when it took the position that she had not suffered from any injury or any significant injury.

In Rezaei v. Piedade, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and brought an ICBC claim for damages arising therein.

In Chow v. Nolan, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for many heads of damages, including pain and suffering, diminished earning capacity, and loss of housekeeping capacity.

In Ostrikoff v. Oliveira, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and brought an ICBC claim for many types of damages, such as non-pecuniary damages, past loss of earning capacity, and future diminished earning capacity.

In Lo v. Matsumoto, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, as well as various other types of damages, such as the cost of future care.

In Rollheiser v. Rollheiser, the Plaintiff was injured in a car accident, and brought an ICBC claim for several heads of damages, including pain and suffering, loss of income, diminished earning capacity, cost of future care, and loss of housekeeping capacity.

In Tsalamandris v. McLeod, the Plaintiff was injured in two motor vehicle collisions, and brought ICBC claims for damages.

In Yik v. Johnson et al., the Plaintiff was a passenger who was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident at an intersection when struck on the passenger side, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for damages, including pain and suffering, loss of income, loss of housekeeping capacity, cost of future care, and an in - trust claim.

In Gignac v. Rozylo et al., the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, as well as other heads of damages, such as future care.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing two ICBC injury claims for being brought beyond the applicable limitation period.

ICBC brought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the Plaintiff was «estopped» from suing again due to the small claims court trial.