Automotive

What are my rights in Canada when I am zero at fault in a car accident?

  • Last Updated:
  • May 25th, 2018 4:21 pm
Penalty Box
User avatar
Apr 25, 2013
6602 posts
1149 upvotes
GoodFellaz wrote:
Jan 1st, 2018 11:09 pm
But But *Godfather Voice* They made me an offer I could not refuse */Godfather Voice*
More like a Joe Minga voice ! ...LOL
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 11, 2008
7824 posts
842 upvotes
Ontario
Rules of the land my friend.. If the accident happened in ontario, then you claim under your policy for either DCPD for a not at fault, or collision, for the at fault.

Why would alberta sign on with FSCO? The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) is a regulatory agency of the Ministry of Finance that regulates insurance, pension plans, loan and trust companies, credit unions, caisses populaires, mortgage brokering, and co-operative corporations in Ontario
absolut123 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2018 3:37 pm
Even in Ontario there are stipulations.

For example, if you as an Ontario driver did not carry collision coverage and got into an accident in Ontario with a vehicle that has Alberta plates and Alberta insurance, even if you are 100% not at fault, you cannot claim through your own insurer as you do not have collision coverage and DCPD most likely would not apply as most Alberta insurers have not signed on with FSCO to provide this coverage. Therefore the not at fault Ontario driver would have to claim through the Alberta insurer or sue the Alberta driver.
RIBO LICENCED INSURANCE BROKER, over 30 years experience
Jr. Member
Apr 20, 2009
153 posts
33 upvotes
COSMIC5 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2018 4:35 pm
Rules of the land my friend.. If the accident happened in ontario, then you claim under your policy for either DCPD for a not at fault, or collision, for the at fault.

Why would alberta sign on with FSCO? The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) is a regulatory agency of the Ministry of Finance that regulates insurance, pension plans, loan and trust companies, credit unions, caisses populaires, mortgage brokering, and co-operative corporations in Ontario
Any Canadian or US insurance company can sign up for the DCPD agreement with FSCO if they want to. They may view it as beneficial if a lot of their client's drive in Ontario to avoid costly litigation.

From fsco's website:

"If your accident is with a vehicle from outside Ontario, DC-PD Coverage does not apply unless the insurer of the out-of-province vehicle has signed an agreement with Ontario to settle claims under the DC-PD rules. If an agreement does not exist, you will have to sue the out-of-province vehicle owner and the driver to recover your loss. Your insurance company will know if the out-of-province insurance company has signed an agreement."

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/broch ... laims.aspx

And from the OAP 1 Section 6.1:

"The coverage under this Section applies only if the accident takes place in Ontario
and at least one other automobile involved is insured under a motor vehicle
liability policy. The policy covering the other automobile must be issued by an
insurance company licensed in Ontario, or one that has filed with the Financial
Services Commission of Ontario to provide this coverage."

So basically if you're insured in Ontario and are involved in an accident where the vehicle is not insured with an insurer who has signed on to DCPD, you have the option of going after the other driver if you choose. If you only carry mandatory coverage in Ontario, your only option is to go after the other driver. This is all assuming you are not at fault.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
Evil Baby wrote:
Dec 30th, 2017 1:54 pm
As for OP, I don't think it's reasonable to ask the insurance company to restore your car. I don't know if you have a right to try and force them to do so but if the car is considered a write-off I don't see why you'd want it fixed anyways.
With the claim amount it would cost to fix that car you'd never be able to sell the vehicle.
How do you even know they could make the car safe again? How are they going to repair the frame and the crumple zones?
Thanks for your reply – The guy who came to look at it said it can be fixed. Not interested to sell it because want to keep driving it as long as possible…

For argument’s sake – let’s imagine - I take a sledge hammer and smash your car with very no respect to your private property (are you happy so far?). Apart from criminal implication, now How does the law look at my compensation to you? Can we send you car to Junker and let me research the cheapest used price of a high millage type of your car… and I pay that?
Jr. Member
Apr 20, 2009
153 posts
33 upvotes
newcal wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2018 7:49 pm
Thanks for your reply – The guy who came to look at it said it can be fixed. Not interested to sell it because want to keep driving it as long as possible…

For argument’s sake – let’s imagine - I take a sledge hammer and smash your car with very no respect to your private property (are you happy so far?). Apart from criminal implication, now How does the law look at my compensation to you? Can we send you car to Junker and let me research the cheapest used price of a high millage type of your car… and I pay that?
If it was not an intentional act, they would be required to restore you to your pre-loss condition. Technically speaking, repairing the vehicle or paying you cash for what the vehicle was worth immediately before the accident occured technically restores you to your pre-loss condition.

Since DCPD does not apply in your situation you can sue and see if a judge will agree to force them to repair the car.

Also have you had someone from a bodyshop prepare an estimate or did they just did an external visual inspection? Sometimes the decision to write off a car isn't always about cost. If the insurer does not feel they can repair the vehicle and meet appropriate safety standards, they will write off the car.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
TrevorK wrote:
Dec 30th, 2017 3:07 pm
The problem lies in that what is damaged may not be worth repairing or may not be able to be repaired (e.g. fire, theft). That's why we allow for replacement of the item at market value. Because a vehicle is an object, it is reasonable to think we can replace it with another vehicle (same make / model). So that's what they are doing when they write it off - they are providing you enough money to replace your vehicle and make you "whole" after everything is said and done.

Good luck but remember that you agreed to terms and conditions with your insurance when you accepted your policy and suing them for something that is covered in this agreement would be a poor idea (financially).


Thank you for taking the time to write. Your comments are very helpful. MY situation is slightly different. I have an old car, but it is *not* a typical Junker. Very clean, no accident, no rust, no pets, non-smoking, garage kept, and car presents very well. The icing on the cake is: I drove it only 7K a year so it has super low mileage for its age. My car also has sentimental value to me as it has been with me though many life’s milestones -- and it was very dependable to me. So I disagree - I don’t consider my car merely an object for A-to-B transportation. I take care of car. I enjoy driving it and willing to fix it. But the write-off makes it hard.

It is not uncommon to think that people have emotional connections with their car. In fact, Autotrader (and similar companies) go to great lengths taking survey after surveys to measure it…. show that around 36% of all car owners consider themselves emotionally connected to their cars. Especially south of the boarder mericans go nuts with their cars. To try this… visit a dealership and when you place a foot into show room, the very first aim of "sales team" is to attach you emotionally to a car. Car makers spend millions to quantify what accounts for such sentimental connections, and what accounts for resulting loyalty in general – in hopes of maximizing repeat buyers. SO thinking about this topic - I do feel sentimental and do *not* consider my car just an object. We should not have “Oh Well” attitude…. We work hard and pay good money to own and maintained our car and we deserve better treatment when someone destroys it.

In general, insurance companies do understand this too, but they always looking after own financial ends, and they are not focused to serve little accident victim. The payout is never enough to replace the car as many have said in this thread.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
Hindenburg1 wrote:
Jan 2nd, 2018 8:41 am
You've got to give us more details OP, so that we can understand your situation better.

Is the insurance giving you a below/equal/above market value for your car? Is your car a used car, meaning you'll have to shop and get another used one? That could be a big hassle finding a right used car out there. Does your car carry some sentimental value/is it a collectible?
Yes, it is a used car and I have to shop to get another used car. Insurance offer is below value. My car has low millage for its age than one would encounter in resell market. I discovered - it is quite hard to find a comparable condition used car (similar to one I have). I have to go to newer years of same car to find comparable millage, clean, well maintained, accident free, no rust, no pets, non-smoking, garage kept. To help find a replacement, I put out an advert – saying - willing to buy similarly described car but No replies so far. Not a collectable, but carries some sentimental value.
Jr. Member
Apr 20, 2009
153 posts
33 upvotes
If the value the insurance company is coming back with below the market value then you need to counter with an amount you feel is reasonable and documentation to support it. Unfortunately, sentimental value cannot be consideration for insurance settlement purposes.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Nov 4, 2008
591 posts
399 upvotes
GTA
newcal wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2018 8:29 pm
I have an old car, but it is *not* a typical Junker. Very clean, no accident, no rust, no pets, non-smoking, garage kept, and car presents very well. The icing on the cake is: I drove it only 7K a year so it has super low mileage for its age.
So what car is it and how old is it?
Deal Fanatic
Oct 7, 2010
8102 posts
802 upvotes
chconline wrote:
Dec 30th, 2017 4:46 pm
I'm a little confused... why would you want to fix a car that insurance is deemed a write off? Taking a payout is always better.

1. Even if it's fixed, it won't be the same after.
2. With a collision that much, your car is worth nothing on the resale market.

Take the money and buy another car.
Collector item lol.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 29, 2017
19 posts
1 upvote
Thank you for taking the time to reply – Some time ago, I removed accident benefit from my policy so that in event of no-fault-accident, my hands would be free. In doing so, I have essentially released my own insurance company from intervening and complicating things. preferred it - My own insurance company is out of the loop.

This explains the main reason for posing my forum question – what is obligation under the law of other insurance company (the person who caused the accident) in remedy and compensation of loss of my property. a lot of good information here.. So I hope that is clear.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 11, 2008
7824 posts
842 upvotes
Ontario
for one, you cannot remove accident beneifts from your policy in Ontario. Its a mandatory coverage. What province are you speaking of?
are you referring to collision coverage being removed from your vehicle?
newcal wrote:
Jan 5th, 2018 5:04 am
Thank you for taking the time to reply – Some time ago, I removed accident benefit from my policy so that in event of no-fault-accident, my hands would be free. In doing so, I have essentially released my own insurance company from intervening and complicating things. preferred it - My own insurance company is out of the loop.

This explains the main reason for posing my forum question – what is obligation under the law of other insurance company (the person who caused the accident) in remedy and compensation of loss of my property. a lot of good information here.. So I hope that is clear.
RIBO LICENCED INSURANCE BROKER, over 30 years experience
Jr. Member
Apr 20, 2009
153 posts
33 upvotes
newcal wrote:
Jan 5th, 2018 5:04 am
Thank you for taking the time to reply – Some time ago, I removed accident benefit from my policy so that in event of no-fault-accident, my hands would be free. In doing so, I have essentially released my own insurance company from intervening and complicating things. preferred it - My own insurance company is out of the loop.

This explains the main reason for posing my forum question – what is obligation under the law of other insurance company (the person who caused the accident) in remedy and compensation of loss of my property. a lot of good information here.. So I hope that is clear.
I'm assuming you are referring to collision coverage? You cannot remove accident benefits.

Again the obligation under the law is to compensate you for the property damage and no more than that. To achieve that they can either to repair the vehicle back to the pre-loss state or buy the vehicle from you and provide you with a cash settlement equal to the current market value of the vehicle immediately prior to the loss. The insurance company is free to choose either option. If they refuse to repair it and that is what you want, you will need to sue and see if a judge will render a judgement in your favour.

If you feel the cash settlement they are giving you is too low, you need to give them proof as to why they are wrong. They hear the same story every day, "my vehicle is not like everyone elses". They want proof of that.
Deal Addict
Sep 30, 2011
1220 posts
238 upvotes
MISSISSAUGA
newcal wrote:
Dec 30th, 2017 11:47 am
My car is a daily commuter, and not a expensive car. And parts are cheap. Car can be fixed. I really love my car and want to have it fixed and continue using it. Thank you.
You don't have the rights to choose to fix your car, and you don't have right on diminish value either. Did you see them in charter right? No no.
You just have to follow insurance law to be compensated for loss and injury, you cannot claim you want your exact same car back, that's insane.
<No political content in signatures>

Top