“Hit By A Drunk And I Don't Have Insurance”

I am going to call BS on the not knowing you had no insurance.

By law insurance companies send registered letters to the owner of the car advising them of the cut off. If it was your car you would have gotten that letter.

The fact that you lost your car will carry no weight as to the penalty. Here it is minimum 5k if you actually fight it in court and lose. If you go on for a plea bargain they drop the fine to 2400. I have never see them drop a charge when an accident is involved.

OPS

OPS Copper wrote:I am going to call BS on the not knowing you had no insurance.

By law insurance companies send registered letters to the owner of the car advising them of the cut off. If it was your car you would have gotten that letter.

The fact that you lost your car will carry no weight as to the penalty. Here it is minimum 5k if you actually fight it in court and lose. If you go on for a plea bargain they drop the fine to 2400. I have never see them drop a charge when an accident is involved.

OPS

Or my husband fetched that letter from the post office using his id which lists us at the same address, with the same last name - which is all you need to pick up a registered letter. He retrieved my passport the same way. As he works nights, I work days, he's first to the mailbox, first to the post office, first to the bank.....he drives me into work everyday and takes the car, returning to pick me up at the end of my day.

Call BS - I could care less. I have a solid history of having insurance in my name since I've owned a car - the first one of which was in 1987. I've had 4 accidents in the last two years including this one, none of which were my fault. The most recent accident was in October of 2011 - my insurance was valid then. Having a pink slip in the glove box with an expiration date that is still valid only gives the indication that insurance is valid. I signed a policy renewal in December which I faxed myself to the insurance company from work. I haven't even finished paying for the car yet - it was also a car I loved immensely - so please, why would I knowingly drive it without insurance under all those circumstances?

Please don't tell me that it isn't possible to deceive people....it's entirely possible.

you might want to search more on due diligence as well, you might have a chance. A way corporations protect themselves with this defense is how they prove they had a system in place that verifies periodically some elements. In your case ,you could possibly argue that your couple act as an organization, and that within your "organization" you have elected your husband to make these verifications periodically, such as pay the bills, etc. If you have bank account that shows your husband is the one taking care of the financial transactions. Maybe you have a letter between you and him that says who's doing what in the couple. Anyway, it's just a thought.

And dont take it personal from OPS (or anyone else). He still brought you some valuable information in his post that you ought to prepare a good defense about. your sister, husband, your dog could have picked up a registered letter is still not enough, even if you never picked up the letter and it got sent back is still negligent. Many cases lost like that.

Having your husband testify that he got the registered letter and lied about it to you, could have a different outcome. Remember the burden is on you to prove you were unaware, just as any reasonable person would be lead to believe.

As for the letter from the insurance company, here's what the province says about deemed date of service:

Deemed date of service

(2) Notice sent by registered mail under clause (1) (a) or by mail under clause (1) (b) shall be deemed to have been given on the seventh day after the mailing unless the person to whom the notice is sent establishes that he or she did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond his or her control, receive the notice. 2000, c. 26, Sched. O, s. 4.

Here's a case of due dilligence, not from Ontario and from which the previous quote doesnt apply, but you'll understand a lot more about due dilligence. Check all related decisions also by clicking "search for decisions citing this decision" at the top:

R. v. Miller, 2006 NBPC 2 (CanLII)

Basically, the related decisions are here (they will give you a lot of insight on due diligence):

Hill v. R., 1973 CanLII 36 (SCC)

R. v. Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (SCC)

R. v. Lowe, 1991 CanLII 2557 (NS CA)

R. v. MacDougall, 1982 CanLII 212 (SCC)

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., 1970 CanLII 178 (SCC)

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC)

R. v. Tutton, 1989 CanLII 103 (SCC)

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 1991 CanLII 39 (SCC)

- The general conditions of the OAP4 will stipulate how the insurance contract can be canceled for non-payment of premium (Registered letter), and has been tested in court.

- I'll hold my comments on the no insurance and the situation surrounding it (I will add that it closely resembles similar no insurance circumstances I'm aware of).

- Further to previous posts, you are very lucky. You could have caused injuries and damages to others in an accident which would put you in serious financial hardship.

- The other insurance company isn't offering to pay for your injuries, they are fulfilling their obligations where their insured caused injuries to others. There is much more to Accident benefits coverage than I need to detail, but in this case the accident benefits on the drunk driver's policy will apply to all parties involved in the collision (including the drunk driver). This is mandatory and this coverage can not be denied. The drunk driving will breach the conditions of the policy and voids their coverage for physical damage.

- Ontario auto is under direct compensation, you claim under and are compensated by your own insurer regardless of fault (this system exists as policyholders do not have to wait for lengthy resolutions on fault or payment, you are paid and the insurers subrogate accordingly). Again, they drunk's insurer is following their legal obligation.

- If you had insurance, your physical damage would be paid out by your insurer (then they would subro the drunk's policy, and then the drunk's insurer would sue the pants (and all future pants) off the drunk (As they would to you had you caused injuries/damages).

- That is the insurance side of it, and why you could not pursue the insurer for property damage.

Thanks Thunderwriter for the simplified explanation of insurance. I've been baffled about the accident benefits and the insurance company's willingness to handle that, despite their not handling of the physical damages. Makes it a little simpler.

I know I was lucky that all of this unveiled in an accident that I was not at fault for....and without serious injury. It still would have been a whole lot easier to swallow if it all came out in a routine traffic stop and I wasn't dealing with two different problems here - the lack of insurance charge and the demo'd car.

From your perspective, is there any reason why I couldn't pursue physical damages through small claims court by suing the drunk directly? I'm not looking for huge payouts, etc. and the idea of pursuing PI doesn't really sit well with my sensibilities. I'm just looking for a way to get compensated for some of the financial damages I've sustained as a result of this - which I'm pretty sure anyone would do if they could. Just like the drunk is probably consulting criminal/DUI legal assitance to see how he can minimize the damages to him.

Julio wrote:you might want to search more on due diligence as well, you might have a chance. A way corporations protect themselves with this defense is how they prove they had a system in place that verifies periodically some elements. In your case ,you could possibly argue that your couple act as an organization, and that within your "organization" you have elected your husband to make these verifications periodically, such as pay the bills, etc. If you have bank account that shows your husband is the one taking care of the financial transactions. Maybe you have a letter between you and him that says who's doing what in the couple. Anyway, it's just a thought.

And dont take it personal from OPS (or anyone else). He still brought you some valuable information in his post that you ought to prepare a good defense about. your sister, husband, your dog could have picked up a registered letter is still not enough, even if you never picked up the letter and it got sent back is still negligent. Many cases lost like that.

Having your husband testify that he got the registered letter and lied about it to you, could have a different outcome. Remember the burden is on you to prove you were unaware, just as any reasonable person would be lead to believe.

I never stated that the insurance company didn't do their part appropriately, because I have no reason to believe they didn't. Nor did I believe it was a defence that the letter was picked up by someone else, therefore, I did not receive it, therefore, I have an out....because that wouldn't be logical either. The no insurance situation is entirely the fault of my husband and I - him for allowing the policy to be cancelled and me for trusting that the details were taken care of. I am a previous social worker -- and the one thing I've learned in that line of work is one should NEVER assume anything about people's situations - and what they're going through. All of this also unveiled to me a gambling issue on behalf of my husband - therefore the reason why the insurance payments defaulted and also why I wasn't made aware - it was an iceberg tip. It's taken two months to get past the iceberg ...... I'm now dealing with the issues as a result. The insurance, along with unpaid cellular bills, water bills, etc.

Ironically, the MTO sent a letter to my home indicating that they believed that the car was unisured and when plate renewals come I would have to show proof of insurance - but the letter came a couple of weeks after the accident - just a little too late. And before that is jumped on - I don't believe the ministry had the obligation to tell me earlier - in fact, I was surprised to see that they sent out notifications like this at all.

I was really just wondering if not knowing the car was uninsured is a defense at all? I can't obviously know what I haven't been told.

im not saying/implying the insurance didnt do their job, its obvious they did and they always do. Im talking about a due diligence defense for yourself so that you can sue the drunk because you had every right in your mind to be on the road with your car while he did not. Re-read my last 2 posts and it will answer your last question.

mom wrote: BUT FOR THE FACT THAT HE WAS DRUNK, MADE AN ILLEGAL LEFT TURN AND SLAMMED INTO MY CAR.....My car wouldn't be a write off and nobody would have been injured. My lack of insurance certainly didn't cause this accident, nor did it cause the drunk to drink.

I don't want to be unhelpful. But one way of looking at this, that I think is germane with respect to the Insurance Act, is to consider the same situation only the other when driver is not intoxicated. That is, he or she merely made an avoidable driving error. So no crime was committed; only inattention or, perhaps, incompetence. I think that, in that case, your lack of insurance (due to your husband's negligence) does leave you exposed.

Another possible way of viewing this is: suppose you had made the same illegal left hand turn (obviously this now quite hypothetical) and hit the otherwise innocent drunk driver. His complaint would be that, not only was he apprehended in his inebriation (and now facing criminal charges) due to someone else' driving and not only was his car a write off, but that other driver had no insurance!

Im wondering, if the guy wasnt drunk, but still his mistake and got seriously injured. Could he sue her because she wasnt even supposed to be on the road in the first place since she wasnt insured?"

Julio wrote:Im wondering, if the guy wasnt drunk, but still his mistake and got seriously injured. Could he sue her because she wasnt even supposed to be on the road in the first place since she wasnt insured?"

He would be indemnified by his insurer and they would go after the uninsured party.

mom wrote:

Ironically, the MTO sent a letter to my home indicating that they believed that the car was unisured and when plate renewals come I would have to show proof of insurance - but the letter came a couple of weeks after the accident - just a little too late. And before that is jumped on - I don't believe the ministry had the obligation to tell me earlier - in fact, I was surprised to see that they sent out notifications like this at all.

I was really just wondering if not knowing the car was uninsured is a defense at all? I can't obviously know what I haven't been told.

This was a joint initiative in an attempt to curb uninsured vehicles from renewing their stickers. Prior to this there was no interchange between the MTO and the IBC/Insurers. If a vehicle had no valid insurance when it came time to renew the sticker/permit, you would be unable to renew (with plenty of warning).

Without full confidence: not knowing a car is uninsured when you are the registered owner is not a valid defense. Borrowing someone's car and being told it is insured - would have more bearing.

Thunderwriter wrote:- The general conditions of the OAP4

Correction; OAP 1. Ontario Auto Policy, available online at FSCO's website. This is the standard driver's auto policy. Typo on my part, the OAP4 is a commercial garage auto policy.