That's an unusual post in that it isn't a first post rant or sell job. It also makes scary sense and sounds factual.
Thank you - I do this for a living, so I'm very familiar with this process.
In reality how often does an insurer sue a client for something like this?
As soon as a judgment is awarded in the event of a trial, or as soon as a settlement is agreed upon between the plaintiff and the insurer; at which point they will put OP on notice, and can take a number of actions:
1) demand payment up front, or in a structured manner.
2) send OP to collections.
3) Put an administrative fine via MTO on OP's license until the amounts have been paid.
4) Put a lien on any assets owned by the OP.
From experience, 2) and 4) are the most likely outcomes for amounts under $50,000 and amounts over $50,000
The authority to drive is an interesting term. How would it apply if you loaned your vehicle to someone who had a license in their possession but it was invalid, suspended in absentia, M-1 / G-1 and took a 400 series and they had a crash?
It depends on what you commit to in a statement. Understand that if it ever gets to the point of litigation and you're dragged into Discoveries, you'll be put under oath, so you'll have to commit to your statement.
Essentially, when you lend your vehicle to someone, you are essentially lending your insurance that goes along with the vehicle as well. Despite this, case law exists that says if you had grounds to believe your friend was appropriately licensed (for example, you see him ride his bike all the time; you guys go cruising on the highway together), a trier of fact is likely to side with you and your belief that your friend had a valid license. In this case, your insurer will pay up to your full liability limits, and pursue your friend for the amounts paid out by pursuing one of the four above-mentioned options.
Yelling that the insurance company will refuse to pay is agreed, unlikely. It’s not a multi-million dollar lawsuit, it’s a fender bender.
Yes, if the OP can convince the other party to allow him to pay, the above clause may avoid an insurance penalty because of the collision, so that’s a good call. Hopefully the OP sees it in time.
However that will not negate the fact that he was charged under the highway traffic act with breaching the conditions of his license class. That said, the insurance company may (or may not, is that considered a major or a minor?) still penalize him for that.
Interesting.
Interestingly enough, the most minor of fender-benders result in the most egregious and frivolous law suits. You can't correlate dollars in physical damage to dollars in injuries - in fact, there's a whole industry dedicated to the idea that the extent of physical damages is not a predictor of the extent of an injury (they're called personal injury lawyers). Whether they actually had injuries or not is one thing - whether OP's insurer can prove a lack of injuries is a different story altogether. Typically, the costs to litigate something like this is $10,000-15,000 right off the get-go; even if it's a meritless claim, OP's insurer will seek these litigation costs directly from OP.
The insurance company will not pay out on OP's first-party claim if he decides to put one forward. More importantly, the insurance company will take an aggressive position against the OP because he violated a statutory condition, and offer him no liability coverage should the other party claim injuries.
On another note, the third-party has 2 years to file a 'Statement of Claim' with the courts, and 180 days from the date of filing to serve this to the OP. So the OP may not find out whether or not the other person is suing for injuries up to 2.5 years later. People's financial positions change in a period of 2 years...
<edit> possibly "driving the vehicle while disqualified from doing so" may be the clause where your insuror may deny coverage.
https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/brochures/Pages/brochure_autoins.aspx#a5
You are 100% correct.
