139873
139995
Achieving-Justice

Use ICBC claim for care

A close circle of friends and family can be a critically important support system in the early stages of recovering from a serious injury.

Patient care in our hospitals is second to none, but cannot reasonably provide the constant bedside care that a parent, spouse or friend can provide.

On release from the hospital, home-care nursing and housekeeping services go a long way, but family and friends can make a huge difference in between those scheduled visits.

And those lucky enough to have such a circle of support might prefer that as many services as possible be provided by loved ones rather than strangers.

Loved ones step up, asking nothing in return.

Each of us grew up with that culture, to varying degrees. Perhaps more so in more rural settings of small towns and farming communities, but it seems to be an integral part of the fabric of our society as a whole.

The services cost the injured victim nothing, but that doesn’t mean they come without a cost.

The friend or family member is doing work. The fact that it’s care-giving and “domestic” type work that our society has historically undervalued does not take away from that. 

And they often incur travel expenses and give up paid work to be able to provide the care and assistance. 

These services most certainly come at an “expense” to those who step up to provide them.

When the need for these services arises from a heart attack, disabling disease or an unavoidable injury, there is no concept of re-allocating that expense. 

But what about when that “expense” is completely avoidable, caused because an inattentive, negligent driver?

Should ICBC, the negligent driver’s insurance company, receive the benefit of those services without compensation?

Our laws have developed to require a negligent driver to fully and fairly compensate their victim for all losses, including the “expense” of friends and family members providing unpaid services.

It’s called an “In-trust claim.”

A recent statement of the law regarding these claims can be found in Huang v. Canadian National Railway, 2018 BCSC 1235 where the court at paragraph 527 lists the factors relevant to assessing this aspect of a claim:

  • (a) the services provided must replace services necessary for the care of the plaintiff as a result of a plaintiff's injuries;
  • (b) if the services are rendered by a family member, they must be over and above what would be expected from the family relationship (here, the normal care of an uninjured child);
  •  (c) the maximum value of such services is the cost of obtaining the services outside the family;
  • (d) where the opportunity cost to the care-giving family member is lower than the cost of obtaining the services independently, the court will award the lower amount;
  • (e) quantification should reflect the true and reasonable value of the services performed taking into account the time, quality and nature of those services. In this regard, the damages should reflect the wage of a substitute caregiver. There should not be a discounting or undervaluation of such services because of the nature of the relationship; and, 
  • (f) the family members providing the services need not forego other income and there need not be payment for the services rendered.

As with all other aspects of an ICBC claim, the “in-trust” aspect must be proven.

Care must be taken to “preserve the evidence” of what services were provided by whom, the amount of time spent providing each service and the reasonable necessity of the services.

An example of where this aspect of a claim was pursued, but the court concluded that the evidentiary burden was not discharged, can be found in paragraphs 234 through 241 in Lensu v. Victorio, 2019 BCSC 59.

Giving of yourself to help another, expecting nothing in return, is a beautiful thing that should be encouraged. When, in effect, your gift is to ICBC or another liability insurance company, it is fair and reasonable to ensure the “expense” of those gifts is fairly allocated.

COMMENTS WELCOME

Comments are pre-moderated to ensure they meet our guidelines. Approval times will vary. Keep it civil, and stay on topic. If you see an inappropriate comment, please use the ‘flag’ feature. Comments are the opinions of the comment writer, not of Castanet. Comments remain open for one day after a story is published and are closed on weekends. Visit Castanet’s Forums to start or join a discussion about this story.



More Achieving Justice articles

53367
About the Author

Paul Hergott began practicing law in 1995, in a general litigation practice. Of the various areas of litigation, he became most drawn to, and passionate about, pursuing fair compensation for injured victims. This gradually became his exclusive area of practice.

In 2007, Paul opened Hergott Law, a boutique personal injury law firm in the Central Interior, serving personal injury clients from all over British Columbia. Paul’s practice is restricted to acting only for the injured victim, never for ICBC or for other insurance companies.

Paul became a weekly newspaper columnist in January of 2007, when his first column entitled “It’s not about screwing the Insurance Company” was published. 

Please feel free to email or call Paul (1.855.437.4688) with legal issues you might like him to write about in his column, or to offer your feedback about something he has written.

Email:   [email protected]
Firm website:  www.hlaw.ca
Achieving Justice Legal Blog:  http://www.hlaw.ca/category/all-columns/
One Crash is Too Many Road Safety Campaign: www.onecrashistoomany.com
Google Plus:  https://plus.google.com/+HlawCanada/posts
Facebook:  www.facebook.com/personalinjurylawfirm
Twitter:   twitter.com/Hergott_Law



137595
The views expressed are strictly those of the author and not necessarily those of Castanet. Castanet does not warrant the contents.

Previous Stories