Not exact matches
In Ontario, when a pedestrian is injured by an
unidentified driver, the «Superintendent of Financial Services» is named as the defendant in the injury
claim.
As the Appellant does not have motor vehicle or other insurance, he sues the
unidentified driver «John Doe» and the Superintendent of Financial Services under the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 41 for compensation from the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Fund.
He commenced an action against the
unidentified driver (John Doe) and the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Fund.
If you live in the state of Colorado, have been hit by an
unidentified driver, and have not explicitly refused uninsured motorist coverage, you may seek compensation by filing a
claim with your own insurance provider.
Section 265 coverage compensates victims of motor vehicle accidents for their injuries by uninsured or
unidentified drivers and is different and apart from underinsured
claims for inadequately insured
drivers.
It is regrettable that the consultation paper restricts its scope to a relatively small number of largely peripheral procedural issues confined to
claims against uninsured and
unidentified drivers.
Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing an injury
claim against involving an
unidentified motorist because the Plaintiff had, due to injuries, no recollection of the collision and no evidence to establish
driver negligence.
He therefore sued the
unidentified driver («John Doe») and the Superintendent of Financial Services (the «Superintendent») under the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Act (the «Act») for compensation from the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Fund (the «Fund»).