The Defendant was apparently insured by ICBC and subject to ICBC's Low
Velocity Impact Defence.
Not exact matches
This tactic is often used by ICBC
defence lawyers as a result of ICBC's Low
Velocity Impact (LVI) policy.
I have blogged several times with respect to ICBC's LVI (Low
Velocity Impact)
Defence with a view towards educating BC vehcicle collision victims that ICBC's LVI Policy is not the law, rather it is an internal policy geared towards saving ICBC money.
It is not unusual for ICBC
defence lawyers to lead evidence that an
impact was «low
velocity» but evidence of no crash is certainly quite unusual.
It was a so - called «low
velocity impact» but the Court rejected this
defence and found the Plaintiff did sustain a moderate whiplash injury.
As discussed many times, the «low
velocity impact «
defence is not particularly compelling and is often judicially frowned upon.
Reasons for judgement were published today on the BC Supreme Court website considering the Low
Velocity Impact (LVI)
defence in a car crash case.