When 14-year-old pedestrian Nigel Brown was struck by a
hit-and-run driver, the last thing on his mind was his entitlement
to insurance benefits. As the victim of an unidentified driver,
Brown was left with no one to sue. Before being allowed to access
benefits from the publicly funded uninsured motorists' fund
(managed by the publicly funded Facility Association) Brown had to
prove that the driver could not be found and that he had access to
no other insurance benefits.
To access benefits in Nova Scotia, Brown had to apply to Court
for an Order to bring his claim against "a party
unknown". Once allowed to sue this unknown Defendant, Brown
could make a claim to benefits from the Facility Association.
As part of Brown's Application to Court, his solicitor
signed an Affidavit herself setting out the factual details of
Brown's claim. This included details as to how the hit-and-run
driver was reported to police and that no one in Brown's
household had an insurance policy at the time of the accident which
could compensate him for this loss.
During the Application hearing, the solicitor for the Facility
Association argued that it was Brown and his mother who should have
provided the factual evidence to the Court, not their solicitor.
Despite Brown and his mother being available to give oral evidence
before the Court, Brown was instead asked by the Court to re-apply
another day and to give his own Affidavit evidence explaining that
the driver of the automobile was unknown and could not be found
despite making all reasonable efforts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).