TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Got Sued for about 330K ... shockin amount ... Need advice
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper In any case, can we please try to stop giving legal advice? I can't emphasize enough how important it is to go get a lawyer RIGHT NOW.

I'm actually glad extacy_bomb started this thread. Something like this has never happened to me and god forbid if something does, then at least I know what to consider and who I should be talking to. This message board is all about sharing our experiences, good or bad. It helps make us all more aware. I'm sure he's smart enough to know everything said here should be taken with a grain of salt. At least now he knows what his options are and where he should start looking. extacy_bomb, hope everything goes well for you man. good luck.

ow!

quote:

Originally posted by teufel-man i have a very similar story, i was hit by a car going approx. 50 km, but i wasnt intoxicated. doctor also said i was lucky i didnt die, i got lucky and i jumped and hit the windshield thank god, which gave in so i didnt get too hurt.... but yeah now my shoulder is fucked, i throw a baseball once and my arms just kills, i think the problem is my rotator cuff too..... but yeah the cop gave me a j-walking ticket, therefore putting the blame on me so i couldnt sue the guy...

apparently I was running around the street like an idiot, it was raining and the guy who hit me was tired he said. But my friends maintain that he lane changed right into me almost as if it was on purpose (they were also wasted). I don't remember anything at all except getting up and asking why we were in the middle of the street in the rain.

We never thought to get his license but in all likelihood if I had even bothered or wanted to sue I would have looked foolish. My rigth shoulder is definitely damaged, although it's much better if I exercise it every day (still haven't bothered with physio).

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS - When one purchases an Automobile Liability insurance policy they bestow upon their insurer IRREVOKABLE power of attorney for all Tort claims advanced against them resultant from any incident involving the subject motor vehicle. Independently consulting counsel is NOT ADVISABLE. He should, nay MUST, contact his automobile liability insurer IMMEDIATELY. The INSURER has the EXCLUSIVE right to defend or pay claims and direct counsel for all claims within the scope of the policy. If he infringes upon those rights he voids his protection. Your recommendation that he consult someone is sound, unfortunately you are recommending the wrong person. That said, any lawyer he talks to will tell him the exact same thing I have... CALL YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY!

ahhhhh...interesting. so can you comment on this info below from the FSCO site? Does this mean that the insurer can deny payment to cover vehicle damage or loss in the event that the driver is convicted of a crime (negligence, impairment, etc)?...and what you're saying is that they can't deny liability coverage, even if guilty of a crime?


http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/i....asp#exclusions

quote:

Your insurance company is allowed to deny payment for loss or damage caused to the vehicle in an accident, if you or anyone you let drive your vehicle: was unable to maintain proper control of the vehicle because you (or he and she) was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or is convicted of one of the following Criminal Code offences (or any similar offences under any other law in Canada or the United States) relating to the use, care, or control of the vehicle: - causing death or injury by criminal negligence, - dangerous operation of a vehicle, - failure to stop at the scene of an accident, - driving a vehicle when impaired or with more than 80 mg of alcohol in the blood, - refusal to provide the police with a breath sample, - causing injury when driving a vehicle while impaired or with over 80 mg/100ml of alcohol in the blood, or - driving the vehicle while disqualified from doing so.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard FYI, you can still advance a claim. A torn rotator cuff is worth $60-80K depending on whether it is partial or full thickness and whether is requires surgical intervention or not. A $30K deductible applies to that so you're looking at $30-$50K... plus some money for housekeeping, special damages, wage loss (if you lost any), loss of competative advantage (possible depending on injury and individual circumstances). The fact that you were intoxicated makes very little difference as a motorist is always at fault for a collision with a pedestrian unless they can prove otherwise... which in my experience only happens if the pedestrian is attempting suicide or runs into a parked vehicle. If you were crossing anywhere other then a crosswalk then you'll be found to be partially liable and will have a reduction in your award pro rata to your liability (likely 20-30%). I'd call a lawyer if I were in your shoes.

it's a partial tear, at least that's what they say they can see from the ultrasound. When I say I was intoxicated, I mean really REALLY intoxicated. I mean top 3 disgustingly wasted times of my life, possibly the most ever. I have no memory of what happened except that we were running around the street in the rain like morons. We didn't get his license plate and the police were never involved.

I guess I should regret that now.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS - When one purchases an Automobile Liability insurance policy they bestow upon their insurer IRREVOKABLE power of attorney for all Tort claims advanced against them resultant from any incident involving the subject motor vehicle. Independently consulting counsel is NOT ADVISABLE. He should, nay MUST, contact his automobile liability insurer IMMEDIATELY. The INSURER has the EXCLUSIVE right to defend or pay claims and direct counsel for all claims within the scope of the policy. If he infringes upon those rights he voids his protection. Your recommendation that he consult someone is sound, unfortunately you are recommending the wrong person. That said, any lawyer he talks to will tell him the exact same thing I have... CALL YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY!

You like capslock!

Tordan, I can't elaborate, but trust me that you don't want personal shit like this online. Just trust me. I'm sure YOU find it beneficial but the thread wasn't started to help you and it shouldn't be kept to help you either.

Don't learn the hard way how your online posts can bleed into the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Intoxication DOES NOT void any motor vehicle LIABILITY coverage in any Canadian province or territory.

Correct....even if you are convicted the Liability coverage is still in place....any coverages for physical damage to your own vehicle will be affected.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard FYI, you can still advance a claim. A torn rotator cuff is worth $60-80K depending on whether it is partial or full thickness and whether is requires surgical intervention or not. A $30K deductible applies to that so you're looking at $30-$50K... plus some money for housekeeping, special damages, wage loss (if you lost any), loss of competative advantage (possible depending on injury and individual circumstances). The fact that you were intoxicated makes very little difference as a motorist is always at fault for a collision with a pedestrian unless they can prove otherwise... which in my experience only happens if the pedestrian is attempting suicide or runs into a parked vehicle. If you were crossing anywhere other then a crosswalk then you'll be found to be partially liable and will have a reduction in your award pro rata to your liability (likely 20-30%). I'd call a lawyer if I were in your shoes.

Remeber, an Accident Benefit Claim will have to be submitted before proceeding with the Tort claim.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT ahhhhh...interesting. so can you comment on this info below from the FSCO site? Does this mean that the insurer can deny payment to cover vehicle damage or loss in the event that the driver is convicted of a crime (negligence, impairment, etc)?...and what you're saying is that they can't deny liability coverage, even if guilty of a crime? http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/i....asp#exclusions

Driving while intoxicated will void your Part 7 (physical damage) coverage.

Liability coverage can only be denied if:
1) there is a general exclusion applies (carrying expolsives or radioactive material, using the vehicle to carry paying passengers, the driver does not have permission to drive the vehicle, you are renting the vehicle to someone without permission of the insurer, it is driven by a garage worker, the vehicle is being used in warfare)
2)you fail to meet your requirements under section 3.4 of the policy (these are reporting requirements and legal requirements to assist in your defence)
3) you violate a statutory condition (most notable are prohibited use and lack of authority to drive, however, there are a lot of other possible violations... like if you lied to the insurance company when getting insurance or failled to notify them of an accident, etc)

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT ahhhhh...interesting. so can you comment on this info below from the FSCO site? Does this mean that the insurer can deny payment to cover vehicle damage or loss in the event that the driver is convicted of a crime (negligence, impairment, etc)?...and what you're saying is that they can't deny liability coverage, even if guilty of a crime?

I'm glad to see some people actually go on the FSCO site

Re: Re: Got Sued for about 330K ... shockin amount ... Need advice

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

Thanks alot for all the time and professional advices and info. I will be contacting my insurance company ASAP.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper My first piece of advice is to get this thread deleted and then get a lawyer. The second cardinal rule of internet message boarding after never post where you work is DO NOT DISCUSS PERSONAL LEGAL ISSUES ONLINE. The third rule is don't take legal advice from people on a message board. You can be mislead very quickly by someone who thinks they are helping but doesn't actually know what they're talking about.

Well I understand where you're coming from. But I believe making this thread has more benefits than hazards. I made this thread to:
1) Benefit from other people's advices and perspectives, one can learn a lot if open up and listen to opinions of others who have already experienced and/or are professionals in regards to a subject. I've already learnt significant infos regarding to my case via this thread
2) To inform others from the mistake that I made so they don' do the same mistake that I did, hence anybody can pretty much learn something from my experience.

I never forget the horrible thing that I did 2 years ago and I�m so grateful that there were no losses.
If I deserve to pay an amount of 4-5G, let it be I guess. I deserve to be punished, although already went threw tough times in the past because of this. There�re consequences for all the actions.

P.S thanks again for all the kindness, I'm lookin forward to finally meet and get to know alot of you in real life. TOTA is fullfilled with some great caring people
P.S.S This is my signiture color from now on ...

quote:

Originally posted by Big Boss Talk to a lawyer, pronto...

+1 000 000 000 000 000 000

Re: Re: Re: Got Sued for about 330K ... shockin amount ... Need advice

quote:

Originally posted by extacy_bomb [color=99A0FF] Well I understand where you're coming from. But I believe making this thread has more benefits than hazards. I made this thread to: 1) Benefit from other people's advices and perspectives, one can learn a lot if open up and listen to opinions of others who have already experienced and/or are professionals in regards to a subject. I've already learnt significant infos regarding to my case via this thread 2) To inform others from the mistake that I made so they don' do the same mistake that I did, hence anybody can pretty much learn something from my experience.

suit yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Got Sued for about 330K ... shockin amount ... Need advice

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper suit yourself.

sue yourself.

Everybody, let's SUIT UP!!

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar my world would fucking crumpled around me the moment I'd have read that if I'd received that. fuck...

hahaha sayin that doesn't help at all....i say u defenetely need a lawyer's advice

quote:

Originally posted by devnull one thing i hate about ontario is that you can sue others when injured in car accidents. Thats why insurance is sooooo fucking expensive.

they brought in new rules to help do away with frivilous lawsuits at the same time as when they brought in no fault insurance. think that must have been about 8 year ago now?

quote:

Originally posted by activate they brought in new rules to help do away with frivilous lawsuits at the same time as when they brought in no fault insurance. think that must have been about 8 year ago now?

Ahh, the famed verbal threshold....
In Ontario, you only have a right of action for non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident if the injuries meet the one or more of the following thresholds:
1) death
2) disfigurement
3) permenent and serious impairment of an important physical, psychological, or mental function.

The problem we have is in defining "permenent and serious."

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Ahh, the famed verbal threshold.... In Ontario, you only have a right of action for non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident if the injuries meet the one or more of the following thresholds: 1) death 2) disfigurement 3) permenent and serious impairment of an important physical, psychological, or mental function. The problem we have is in defining "permenent and serious."

You can still sue for economic losses even if you don't meet the verbal threshold.

I remember one case....an old lady use to go for walks every night with her husband for an hour but years after the accident she could only go for shorter walks. The jury felt this was a permenent and serious injury and therefore, she met the criteria for verbal threshold.

When it comes down to it a sympathetic victim against the big bad insurance company will win if its a borderline call.

IMO, the verbal threshold should be equal to a catastrophic injury. If you don't qualify for a catastrophic injury under the Accident Benefits claim then you don't meet the threshold. The definition of what a Catastrophic injury is clearly laid out and there are medical tests to confirm if you meet those criteria....takes the guess work out of the hands of a jury.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.