The litigants  in this multiple car accident ICBC injury case (Johnson v. Wells, 2011 BCSC 201) return to court to complete their arguments on whether there was a settlement of an injury claim with an ICBC adjuster.
In an earlier decision in this ICBC car accident settlement case the  Supreme Court of BC ordered cross-examination of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC ) adjuster Patricia Johnston  on her affidavit  as to the discussions she had with the injury claimant’s lawyer regarding settlement.
The ICBC adjuster said she believed that the claimant’s lawyer had authority to deal with her on both accidents claims because he had negotiated with her and also settled one claim with her. This led her to believe he was representing the claimant on both claims.  The claimant said that she discussed settlement of her first accident with her lawyer but there was no mention or even thought on her part of settling any claim arising out of the second accident as she had not hired her lawyer for that matter.
 The court  found that in this case the injury lawyer was not hired by the claimant for her second accident and he therefore had no ostensible authority arising from any agency principles such as existed in other cases. The conclusion of the judge was that no settlement of the second accident injury claim or potential claim had been proven by the affidavits or cross-examinations.
The settlement of the first ICBC injury claim was also set aside, “Because the only settlement agreed to by Adjuster Johnston for the defendant Wells with Mr. Albertson was a settlement of both claims for $7,500 with no division of that amount into the individual claims, there are no established terms of settlement of the 2006 claim either and it cannot be enforced either.” Posted by Mr. Renn A. Holness

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment