This car accident injury claimant was offered $450,000 to settle his settle her personal injury claim against ICBC and its insured(Brewster v. Li,2014 BCSC 463). When the offer was refused the case proceeded to a Supreme Court trial and after 9 days she was awarded $418,500, over $30,000 lower than the ICBC Offer.
The Judge reviewed the involvement of ICBC as a factor in determining whether there were attempts to bully the claimant, unsuccessfully, into settling. There was some evidence at trial of the financial pressures that the injury claimant and her husband had however ICBC involvement it did not appear to be a factor.
The Judge’s remedy to ICBC was to deprive the injury claimant of all of her costs, including all disbursements, for the 9 days trial.
The dominant object that animates Rule 9–1(5)–(6) is the promotion of reasonable settlements. The court determined that this ICBC offer was well within the range of outcomes that could reasonably have been expected, and was one which ought reasonably to have been accepted: Haigh v. Kent, 2013 BCSC 298 at para.15; see also Tompkins v. Bruce, 2012 BCSC 833 at para. 29.
Posted by ICBC Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.– working only for the injured, not ICBC or any other insurance company.