Can I sue my insurance company?

[infernobuster]

Over 20 years in the Insurance Claims Industry, including the defence of approximately 350 separate court actions on fire department billing practices, not to mention a Canadaian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Challenge before the Ontario Superior Court and Ontario Court of Appeal.

Please name some of the court cases you have won against a city FD " for their billing practices"

You can challenge and appeal anything, so thats not impressive. Out of your "approx" 350 have you won ? And on what grounds ?

[infernobuster]

Clearly a troll... lol.

PC: I'd be interested in what part you think I'm wrong about.

Inferno: Just tell me where you get your facts from.

Doesn't even seem like he read anything.

Troll?

[Brix1487]

It seems that people think the insurance company must pay before adding an at-fault accident to your record. I thought the two actions could be independent. PC please confirm.

If I understand correctly, there was a third party that requested money (fire department). The rider paid, but due to a third party requesting money, the at-fault collision counts.

Here's where I get foggier, now that his record is already marred, would having the claim (ie. getting insurance company to pay for fire department and damage) make things any worse? Basically do the insurance companies count crashes or claims (or both)? Thx.

These are good questions. Does anybody else have any thoughts about these?

[Brix1487]

lol. Really? Jump down the claims adjuster's response. OK.

The OP wants to sue the insurance company because they didn't make a claim. He must have presented his insurance information to the fire department at the time of the incident or at sometime afterwards. How did they get the information? Why was it given? I understand providing the insurance information to law enforcement as it's required when requested.

Something is missing here.

The fire dept. must've got my insurance information from the police report.

[PLau]

Troll?

Eeh, when it comes to this sort of thing, I have no idea weather the information provided is true or not but the way you respond to everything sounds like you're just trolling.

[infernobuster]

Eeh, when it comes to this sort of thing, I have no idea weather the information provided is true or not but the way you respond to everything sounds like you're just trolling.

Get a clue buddy .. do you even know what a troll is?

[dr_sarcasm]

Get a clue buddy .. do you even know what a troll is?

No offense, but Platinum was referred to this thread by someone who knows insurance...you'd assume that Platinum knows what he/she are talking about given Vilffer's credentials over the period he/she has been posting here.

Platinum seems to have posted with some degree of reason and given some type of reference points to the original poster. Now, the onus (burden?) of proof lies with you, given that it seems that you seem to insinuate that in fact a claims adjuster is lying/fibbing/withholding information? How do YOU know this, what experience/expertise do YOU bring to the table that refutes what he/she is suggesting?

Without the above, you can see as to why some of us are a little miffed at your..."attacks" (not sure that's the right word, but I'm drawing a blank as to a better word to describe the zeal with which you seem to be denying Platinum's posts).

Just sayin, would be good to get clarity on the entire matter. Just my $0.02.

[infernobuster]

just to clarify .. the troll part was not directed at Platinum. It was at P.Lau stating i was a troll in this thread.

[infernobuster]

A great number of thoughts come to mind on this one.

1) As for the accident, to argue you aren't at fault for this incident is extremely difficult. Sorry if you don't like that but it's a fact.
2) This is a reportable claim to your insurer. Reason being another party suffered damages - The fire dept. The damages they suffered was the cost to respond to the scene, do the clean up, fire prevention or whatever other BS they wrote on the invoice. Your policy requires all such claims be reported to the insurance company, regardless of the dollar amount when it involves a third party.
3) Don't like fire depts charging you for services. Neither do I, which is why I have a particular interest in this area of insurance law. I don't mind telling you I am probably considered one of the leading experts in this area. It's a complex matter. I am sure there were possibly some good legal arguments as to why you didn't have to pay that fire dept bill. Too bad you already paid it but I understand why you did.

As an aside fire departments have become masters at extorting money from tax paying citizens who actually fund the fire dept to begin with. Your house burns down, wait for the fire dept bill of $5000 - $10000 or more. Don't believe me, look into. Even if you die in the fire they still want their bill paid.

4) At a minimum, you should ask your insurer to reimburse you what you paid the fire dept, and now that the claim is on your record you may as well make a claim for the damages to your motorcycle if you have collision coverage.

1. If PC is who he says he is, he would be more educated on who shows up at a scene and who does the billing procedures. Fire Prevention has nothing to do with accidents whatsoever, and the FD does not write anything on an invoice.
2. Fire departments only charge people who do NOT reside in the town/city where the accident occurs. That again depends on the city operating procedure, and it varies all across Ontario.
3. FD do not charge a homeowner with a bill of 5 or 10 g's if there house burns down. That statement is completely in left field.

For those asking how this particular FD may have gotten the insurance info .. one of two ways. One way is his license plate is written down at the scene. Two is gaining that information from the police at the scene itself. Normally its just the license plate we record, and afterwards when the report is drawn up we cross reference our report with the police report.

[nakkers]

Interesting. It appears both police and fire arrived at the scene. So, what was the purpose of both responding? To clean up the oil hazzard on the road and direct others away? Or were they responding to the OP incident itself?

Maybe that doesn't matter?

I understand why the OP didn't want to make a claim, took things into their own hands and paid for things out of pocket. Makes perfect sense.

Sometimes there are other liability elements that may arrise out of the incident that may not be evident at the time.


At the end of the day, there was a single vehicle collision. A police report is a matter of record. Unless the incident DIDN'T happen, I don't see how the OP has a case to win against the insurance company for using the information. Unless the information is false.


What do I know? I'm just another keyboard warrior.

[Brix1487]

At the end of the day, there was a single vehicle collision. A police report is a matter of record. Unless the incident DIDN'T happen, I don't see how the OP has a case to win against the insurance company for using the information. Unless the information is false.

The incident did happen. What's false is the details the insurance company wrote in the insurance transcript about the incident isn't consistent with what the police report said. They just jumped to conclusions saying I was speeding into the turn and lost control of the vehicle. They didn't mention anything about the tire slipping on oil.

Thats my beef!

[turbodish]

The incident did happen. What's false is the details the insurance company wrote in the insurance transcript about the incident isn't consistent with what the police report said. They just jumped to conclusions saying I was speeding into the turn and lost control of the vehicle. They didn't mention anything about the tire slipping on oil.

Thats my beef!

And what exactly did the police report say?

[insert]

a quick little breakdown... in a negligence situation... such as this...

in court the appellant (insurance company) would have to prove:
1) that there was a duty of care (in this case, duty to safely operate motor vehicle on roadway)
2) there was a breach of duty (the crash)
3) there was a precaution (slowing down in the turn)
4) possible that precaution (slowing down) would have prevented breach (crash) ***note that they dont ave to prove it would have prevented it, just that it was reasonably possible that it may have prevented it.
5) they are done, you are liable.

if there is something that could detract from your liability, you must bring this up. either the contributory negligence of someone else(negligence of cityfor not keeping roadway clean and safe... but not sure that would hold any weight), or somekind of intervening act (might argue that the oil was an intervening force... but it is non-moving. you hit it. you failed to avoid it.).
this isnt a criminal matter, there is no proving beyond reasonable doubt. they just have to prove that it happened, and that there was available precautions you could have taken to avoid the incident.

so if you could sue the insurance company... then i dont think you would stand a very good chance at winning.

They have recorded an at fault accident where an "at fault" accident did occur. single vehicle collisions are always at fault (unless some sort of intervening act or contributory negligence-someone else does something that causes/contributes to the accident- can be proved).

however, you might stand a better chance bringing an action against whoever informed the insurance company (cc'd them in the bill). but you would first have to look into if the police/fire departments have the right to disclose that info to insurance companies, i'm not familiar with the specific law here, but i have a feeling that there's nothing preventing them from doing this. or else I'm pretty sure I would have picked up on it, as it would probably be very profitable.

[nakkers]

The insurance report is separate from your driver's abstract. The insurance company has simply recorded the at fault incident. The OP may not like what the insurance company notes how the incident occurred but, that doesn't matter. There will be zero pay out on the claim but, it's still an occurence they can use to set their rates upon renewal. It will also affect your rates if you decide to switch insurance companies.

Some insurance companies offer accident forgiveness. Check with your agent and see.

Even if the police report indicates the road surface was covered in oil prior to the incident, the insurance company will consider the operator of the vehicle responsible as they should be able to recognize the hazzard and avoid it.

[mxs]

And what exactly did the police report say?

That's a good point as OP didn't post what exactly the police report has said. OP only stated what it didn't say. Regardless though, I still think it's troubling that without an official due claim they allowed to do as they wish with the information they either duly or by mistake have received.

But even more troubling to me is the free world of insurance companies to translate no-fault rendered police reports to at-fault kind of insurance version so they can hike rates (what other reason would be behind that?), is very troubling and has been reported many times before. There's no law (correct me if I am wrong) which bans insurance companies to spin things their own way. They have their own scales of faults .... to me if the experts (police on the scene) rule no-fault, there's no way any insurance company (who usually is never at the scene) known to man, should be allowed to negatively impact my rating in regards to that particular event. What sense does this make except the one to them?

As far as fire and emergency services being billed separately to tax payers .... I don't get it. Shouldn't this be part of the cost to the municipality, therefore part of taxes we all pay. Why the hefty bills from FD or when 911 is dispatched. It didn't used to be liked that, so why and when did it start?

[mxs]

Even if the police report indicates the road surface was covered in oil prior to the incident, the insurance company will consider the operator of the vehicle responsible as they should be able to recognize the hazzard and avoid it.

This is just bs, and we all know it. Perhaps if you are a spiderman, superman or whatever. That's just flat out the stuff the insurance companies should not be allowed to get away with. As much as I hate courts and litigation in general, this one I would be glad to take on. If I was riding/driving within the traffic law applicable any good lawyer should be able to make someone else to pay. Reasonable judge should see through the bs of all drivers expected to be superhuman.

[OpenGambit]

a quick little breakdown... in a negligence situation... such as this...

in court the appellant (insurance company) would have to prove:
1) that there was a duty of care (in this case, duty to safely operate motor vehicle on roadway)
2) there was a breach of duty (the crash)
3) there was a precaution (slowing down in the turn)
4) possible that precaution (slowing down) would have prevented breach (crash) ***note that they dont ave to prove it would have prevented it, just that it was reasonably possible that it may have prevented it.
5) they are done, you are liable.

if there is something that could detract from your liability, you must bring this up. either the contributory negligence of someone else(negligence of cityfor not keeping roadway clean and safe... but not sure that would hold any weight), or somekind of intervening act (might argue that the oil was an intervening force... but it is non-moving. you hit it. you failed to avoid it.).
this isnt a criminal matter, there is no proving beyond reasonable doubt. they just have to prove that it happened, and that there was available precautions you could have taken to avoid the incident.

so if you could sue the insurance company... then i dont think you would stand a very good chance at winning.

They have recorded an at fault accident where an "at fault" accident did occur. single vehicle collisions are always at fault (unless some sort of intervening act or contributory negligence-someone else does something that causes/contributes to the accident- can be proved).

however, you might stand a better chance bringing an action against whoever informed the insurance company (cc'd them in the bill). but you would first have to look into if the police/fire departments have the right to disclose that info to insurance companies, i'm not familiar with the specific law here, but i have a feeling that there's nothing preventing them from doing this. or else I'm pretty sure I would have picked up on it, as it would probably be very profitable.

Hmm

This is not a negligence situation, this is about disclosure of information. There is no negligence claim because: (i) the OP did not sue anyone; and (ii) no one sued the OP.

Appellants are for appeals, its Plaintiff and Defendant at the trial level, the only trial level court that uses "Appellant" is the Tax Court of Canada.

Lastly, even if there WAS a negligence situation, the insurance company wouldn't be a party, so they wouldn't prove anything. They will either be subrogated into the OP's claim, or they would take over the OP's defense ( subject to the Ontario no fault insurance regime.)

Contributory negligence is not somethign the OP brings up, it is something that defendants argue to show that the plaintiff is also at fault.

In other words, I have no clue what you are talking about.

[OpenGambit]

That's a good point as OP didn't post what exactly the police report has said. OP only stated what it didn't say. Regardless though, I still think it's troubling that without an official due claim they allowed to do as they wish with the information they either duly or by mistake have received.

But even more troubling to me is the free world of insurance companies to translate no-fault rendered police reports to at-fault kind of insurance version so they can hike rates (what other reason would be behind that?), is very troubling and has been reported many times before. There's no law (correct me if I am wrong) which bans insurance companies to spin things their own way. They have their own scales of faults .... to me if the experts (police on the scene) rule no-fault, there's no way any insurance company (who usually is never at the scene) known to man, should be allowed to negatively impact my rating in regards to that particular event. What sense does this make except the one to them?

As far as fire and emergency services being billed separately to tax payers .... I don't get it. Shouldn't this be part of the cost to the municipality, therefore part of taxes we all pay. Why the hefty bills from FD or when 911 is dispatched. It didn't used to be liked that, so why and when did it start?

At the end of the day, the insurance company is a private entity, they can offer protection on whatever terms they wish subject to some limitations. So if they want to to interpret something at fault in their eyes, there really isn't anything you can do other than change companies.

[insert]

Hmm

This is not a negligence situation, this is about disclosure of information. There is no negligence claim because: (i) the OP did not sue anyone; and (ii) no one sued the OP.

the whole thread is asking about a lawsuit. that is what the OP wants to know, can he sue insurance company... he cant sue them for receiving disclosure of info. i'm not sure he can sue them for anything. thats what i was trying to say.

[OpenGambit]

the whole thread is asking about a lawsuit. that is what the OP wants to know, can he sue insurance company... he cant sue them for receiving disclosure of info. i'm not sure he can sue them for anything. thats what i was trying to say.

Then I am not sure why you didn't just say that, because you typed a lot of wrong information in your post.