OHTA.ca

Hi, Thank You in advance for any advice given.

In 2006 I was hit head on by a drunk driver that crossed into my lane of traffic and have been deemed catostrophically impaired by the insurance company and handicapped for life. Several days AFTER the accident the police notified me that my licence was under suspension for an unpayed fine. I was aware that the fine had to be paid when it was imposed but was unemployed at the time and could not pay it immediatly as time passed I missed the default date. I did not recieve a certified letter saying that it was going into default and my licence would be suspended as my mail was going to the address on my licence (my parents) and I was living elsewhere.Now 4 years later with a pre trial hearing coming up in the fall the Insurance company is cutting off all income replacement and house keeping funds citing that because my licence was suspended I am not entilted to anything and my lawyer SEEMS TO AGREE with THEM!.So here is my question at what point in my story is my licence offically suspended and because I new of the court ordered fine but had missed the default date can the insurance use that against me by saying I knew of the fine and SHOULD have known it was under suspension and it's my fault for not paying in a timely manner. My lawyer is supposed to be the best in Ontario I don't see how this can be such a huge problem but maybe it is black and white and too bad for me. If it is it makes a million dollar settlement down to him getting paid for his costs and me getting less than nothing. Thanks for listening. T.J

52. (1) Where a persons drivers licence is suspended, notice of the suspension is sufficiently given if delivered personally or,

(a) in the case of a suspension under section 41 or 42, sent by registered mail addressed to the person to whom the licence was issued at the latest current address of the person appearing on the records of the Ministry;

(b) in the case of all other suspensions, sent by mail addressed to the person to whom the licence was issued at the latest current address of the person appearing on the records of the Ministry. 2000, c. 26, Sched. O, s. 4.

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.

The onus is on you to ensure your mailing address is accurate and that access your mail. You may have the best lawyer in the world...but it won't help you in this situation.

Please seek legal advice from a qualified professional for a second opinion because this involves insurance and not HTA. Yes, it is your responsibility to ensure you pay your fines, but I don't think that you can be denied your right to seek damages (punitive as well) for this driver's criminal act. See, this is so much more than an accident. This person chose to break the law contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, act grossly negligent, and put you in the state you are in. These actions even preclude someone from having a judgment against them in civil court discharged in bankruptcy. I don't think you are entitled to receive AB according to your policy, but something about this story is not jiving.

Now, with that said, in accordance with the insurance act, one is estopped from seeking compensation through a claim if they failed to have insurance and, say, someone hits them - even if the accident was not their fault. However, the driver in this incident was grossly negligent and it was not just an accident.

Is you lawyer telling you that because you were uninsured, you are no longer entitled to seek damages PERIOD?

That is just horrible, and it does not sound just at all. Is your lawyer telling you to settle now for costs?

Sounds like the lawyer is saying that since the person is suspended, they do not have a licence, should never have been on the road, is therefore a violation of the insurance policy (fine print stuff) and is not covered?

And the other driver had a licence, but was impaired by alcohol, thus that insurance policy is probably void and is not covering anything either.