Dui | GTAMotorcycle.com

Dui

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
"His companies insurance said they aren't covering it because he was driving drunk. The city is making him pay for the bridge repairs too. His life is over."

The quote is in relation to the Skyway bridge truck wreck.

Personally, I don't care about the impaired driver, his company, HIS starving homeless children etc. This is what you get for DUI.

If I understand it correctly, the insurance catch is that one's insurance is invalid if the vehicle is being being used in a crime and DUI, in Canada, is a criminal offense. Does this mean the the victims of DUI incidents are stuck without compensation?

I'm not sure if the uninsured automobile coverage section of the insurance policy is mandatory.

Similarly, if your vehicle was stolen to be used in a getaway and crashes, could the owner be left holding the bag?
 
No fault insurance. If you are in a collision that is someone else's fault and they were drunk, your insurance company pays you. It's then up to the insurance companies to settle the rest between themselves. The drunk driver's insurance may not pay for their own vehicle's damage.

If your vehicle was stolen ... and you had theft coverage on it ... it's a stolen vehicle. What happens after that is not your concern. If you didn't have theft coverage on it ... it's a stolen vehicle. It may take a while for the investigation to reveal the facts, but bottom line, it's a stolen vehicle and you weren't driving the vehicle to do whatever damage it did if the thief crashed it.

If you are drunk-driving and drive your truck into a bridge ... the bridge is not a motor vehicle and doesn't have no-fault insurance to pay damages to itself, so someone who hits it and does damage to it (or their insurance company) is responsible.

In this situation ... it's pretty likely that the driver won't ever be able to pay for the repairs and will likely have to declare bankruptcy. It's also pretty likely that the authorities are asking some tough questions to the trucking company about how they train and supervise their employees. The trucking company probably has deeper pockets than their employee - but probably not deep enough. They may be done, too. Some may argue that taking a questionable trucking company out of the picture may be for the best. They'll be operating tomorrow under a different name with the same shady drivers ...
 
Does declaring bankruptcy get you out of a court judgement? Whomever owns the bridge sues the driver and/or company and a judgement is made against them for a million dollars, they can't just declare bankruptcy and be home free can they?
 
I am by no means an insurance expert of any sort, but I had a similar question for allstate for when we go down to the dragon. Tennessee only mandates $25k of coverage. When asked what happens if the person only has $25k or no insurance at all the underwriters said that your own policy would cover whatever you need to the maximum written in your policy. The insurance companies would deal with who owes what between eachother. I do not know if this is across the board or true for other insurance companies.


nobbie48 said:
"His companies insurance said they aren't covering it because he was driving drunk. The city is making him pay for the bridge repairs too. His life is over."

The quote is in relation to the Skyway bridge truck wreck.

Personally, I don't care about the impaired driver, his company, HIS starving homeless children etc. This is what you get for DUI.

If I understand it correctly, the insurance catch is that one's insurance is invalid if the vehicle is being being used in a crime and DUI, in Canada, is a criminal offense. Does this mean the the victims of DUI incidents are stuck without compensation?

I'm not sure if the uninsured automobile coverage section of the insurance policy is mandatory.

Similarly, if your vehicle was stolen to be used in a getaway and crashes, could the owner be left holding the bag?
Click to expand...
 
kellen said:
Does declaring bankruptcy get you out of a court judgement? Whomever owns the bridge sues the driver and/or company and a judgement is made against them for a million dollars, they can't just declare bankruptcy and be home free can they?
Click to expand...

No court allocated debts cant be cleared by going Bankrupt
 
nobbie48 said:
"His companies insurance said they aren't covering it because he was driving drunk. The city is making him pay for the bridge repairs too. His life is over."

The quote is in relation to the Skyway bridge truck wreck.

Personally, I don't care about the impaired driver, his company, HIS starving homeless children etc. This is what you get for DUI.

If I understand it correctly, the insurance catch is that one's insurance is invalid if the vehicle is being being used in a crime and DUI, in Canada, is a criminal offense. Does this mean the the victims of DUI incidents are stuck without compensation? As I understand it, the insurance will cover anybody else (just like they would if he wasn't drunk) and then collect from him/company that was actually insured. Don't quote me on that, but the reason I say this is from a family member had an accident while driving under medical suspension. The insurance paid out the other car, but sent the bill to my family member. Yes, it was ugly.

I'm not sure if the uninsured automobile coverage section of the insurance policy is mandatory.

Similarly, if your vehicle was stolen to be used in a getaway and crashes, could the owner be left holding the bag?
Click to expand...

Brian P said:
No fault insurance. If you are in a collision that is someone else's fault and they were drunk, your insurance company pays you. It's then up to the insurance companies to settle the rest between themselves. The drunk driver's insurance may not pay for their own vehicle's damage.

If your vehicle was stolen ... and you had theft coverage on it ... it's a stolen vehicle. What happens after that is not your concern. If you didn't have theft coverage on it ... it's a stolen vehicle. It may take a while for the investigation to reveal the facts, but bottom line, it's a stolen vehicle and you weren't driving the vehicle to do whatever damage it did if the thief crashed it.

If you are drunk-driving and drive your truck into a bridge ... the bridge is not a motor vehicle and doesn't have no-fault insurance to pay damages to itself, so someone who hits it and does damage to it (or their insurance company) is responsible.

In this situation ... it's pretty likely that the driver won't ever be able to pay for the repairs and will likely have to declare bankruptcy. It's also pretty likely that the authorities are asking some tough questions to the trucking company about how they train and supervise their employees. The trucking company probably has deeper pockets than their employee - but probably not deep enough. They may be done, too. Some may argue that taking a questionable trucking company out of the picture may be for the best. They'll be operating tomorrow under a different name with the same shady drivers ...
Click to expand...
Highly unlikely....in 1997, the MTO enacted "target 97, as well as the impound program. Under the CVOR guidelines, steps were taken to directly stop this exact situation as many companies used to do this. Under the act, serial numbers, the vehicles themselves, the directors are all named and tracked in a penalty phase. If the "company" faces operating sanctions, then so do each principal, director, owner, etc. Not saying they won't find away around it, but the frequency has declined sharply since the days of Muscillo transport
 
Brian P said:
In this situation ... it's pretty likely that the driver won't ever be able to pay for the repairs and will likely have to declare bankruptcy. It's also pretty likely that the authorities are asking some tough questions to the trucking company about how they train and supervise their employees. The trucking company probably has deeper pockets than their employee - but probably not deep enough. They may be done, too. Some may argue that taking a questionable trucking company out of the picture may be for the best. They'll be operating tomorrow under a different name with the same shady drivers ...
Click to expand...

I have a buddy who is a long distance trucker. In conversations with him I have gathered that there is a complex relationship with the truck brokerage system. Party A owns the truck but party B has their name on the door. The license plate doesn't belong to Part A and the insurance isn't their responsibility either IIRC. Loads and trailers are swapped around with everyone slashing rates and cutting corners to try to make a buck out of the deregulated system. Maybe a knowledgeable member can clarify.

The truck in question appears to be a scrap metal hauler. Non-perishable, low cost bottom of the barrel cargo. A prime target for cut throat pricing and quality. It seems empty, probably after unloading at one of the Burlington Street mills. I wonder how much damage it would have done if it had another 30 tons of momentum.

Drivers get screwed on a regular basis, not getting paid for wait times and having to wait months to get paid etc. Is it any wonder the system doesn't attract top notch individuals. That isn't to say they're all bad, some learn to survive.

When this goes to court there will be many, many names on the defendents list. It'll be all sorted out in 7-8 years.
 
Last edited:
nobbie48 said:
I have a buddy who is a long distance trucker. In conversations with him I have gathered that there is a complex relationship with the truck brokerage system. Party A owns the truck but party B has their name on the door. The license plate doesn't belong to Part A and the insurance isn't their responsibility either IIRC. Loads and trailers are swapped around with everyone slashing rates and cutting corners to try to make a buck out of the deregulated system. Maybe a knowledgeable member can clarify.

The truck in question appears to be a scrap metal hauler. Non-perishable, low cost bottom of the barrel cargo. A prime target for cut throat pricing and quality. It seems empty, probably after unloading at one of the Burlington Street mills. I wonder how much damage it would have done if it had another 30 tons of momentum.

Drivers get screwed on a regular basis, not getting paid for wait times and having to wait months to get paid etc. Is it any wonder the system doesn't attract top notch individuals. That isn't to say they're all bad, some learn to survive.

When this goes to court there will be many, many names on the defendents list. It'll be all sorted out in 7-8 years.
Click to expand...

Many truths here. I did a test run for a while with one of these scrap metal carriers to see about putting a few trucks on.....absolutely terrifying industry to say the least. Many of the "owner operators" are deducted a percentage of the freight to pay for using the trailer, which belongs to the company that is being dispatched to carry the loads. They typically have a contract that "saves harmless" from any liability that arises from the owner/operator, but that doesn't necessarily absolve them in a lawsuit. What does muddy the waters is that the driver likely operates under his own license, insurance, CVOR, and operates under a non-exclusive contract to the metal carrier, who in turn has contracts with multiple steel mill customers. Without a doubt this metal carrier will at some point be under fire regarding their due diligence about employing certain carriers, but to what degree is hard to say. Don't even get me started about what these drivers do with regards to equipment and hours of service violations. It's a horrible industry.
 
Two questions here by the OP as I see it 1) Who pays for the bridge. The simple answer is the truck drivers insurer does as well as all the fire dept charges, emergency clean up etc. Despite the driver being in contravention of his policy (driving drunk) the insurer is absolutely liable for the damages he causes to the third party (the bridge owner). The insurer is only on the hook for the minimum liability limits in Ontario - $200 000. They could try and recover that from the truck driver but you know the old story - blood from a stone. 2) What about the damages to the truck? If the drunk driver actually owned the truck - there is no coverage for the trucks damage. If the truck is owned by a trucking company they will be paid as they are the insured and they did not violate the policy only the driver violated the policy. Similarly if the truck is leased the leasing company (true owner of the truck ) would be paid. In any of these scenarios the insurer after making settlement with the owner of the truck could go after the drunk guy who was driving it.
 
Re the blood from a stone, i know a rider from Arizona that was severely injured, nearly killed, by a semi. The truck driver got off worse. He hit the guardrail and the truck lurched throwing him against the truck roof. He suffered a broken neck and is now a quadruplegic.
 
nobbie48 said:
Does this mean the the victims of DUI incidents are stuck without compensation?
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware the victims medical, repair bills, lost wages, etc are paid by their own insurance company. How their company is compensated by the drunk driver/his insurance, I do not know. Otherwise the family can sue the drunk driver but they will have a decade long legal battle. My family has been through it (I have 3 cousins that had to grow up with no parents due to a drunk driver).
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom