Abused by ICBC? Examination of Discovery.
- Thread starter tongue
- Start date
I wouldn't be too concerned, unless you have something to hide. Pre-trial discovery is in essence a mini trial to examine whether there is enough motivation through disclosures to move to a trial. Most settlements take place during or following a discovery. It is a very interesting process that can reveal flaws and strengths in your case, provide you with information that has not been disclosed up to that point, and prepare you for a full-blown affair if it goes that way. It can also save you a ton of money.
Depends on the incident, especially as it pertains to personal injury.
I concur. A brilliant acquaintance, who has been confined to a wheelchair since birth, was struck and injured by an errant driver while passing through a well-lit crosswalk, on a green light a few years back. His initial reaction was to go along with ICBC, who offered to pay for the medical and therapeutic recovery treatments, followed by a negotiated but "scaled" monetary compensation.
After discussing the details of his contacts with ICBC, I advised him to immediately seek the services of an attorney - one who was used to dealing with cases involving people with physical challenges like his. It was the best move he made. The case was eventually settled out of court for a significant sum that went well beyond ICBC's "scale", after costs. Needless to say, he has a fine grin on his face nowadays. ICBC exploits our ignorance, and procrastination to its advantage. After all, they are very pragmatic when trying to keep a lid on their costs.
The difference lay in the consideration for pain and suffering of the individual which ICBC always plays in its favour, but that the Courts see otherwise. Faced with the weight of overwhelming precedents, ICBC will almost, always back down before going to trial. For the neophyte who doesn't have the persistence and the research clout of a competent legal team behind him, it is indeed wise, if not cost effective to pay for that expertise going in.
One final and important thing to remember: "The weight of full disclosure in discovery applies to both parties". You are under Oath!
I concur. A brilliant acquaintance, who has been confined to a wheelchair since birth, was struck and injured by an errant driver while passing through a well-lit crosswalk, on a green light a few years back. His initial reaction was to go along with ICBC, who offered to pay for the medical and therapeutic recovery treatments, followed by a negotiated but "scaled" monetary compensation.
After discussing the details of his contacts with ICBC, I advised him to immediately seek the services of an attorney - one who was used to dealing with cases involving people with physical challenges like his. It was the best move he made. The case was eventually settled out of court for a significant sum that went well beyond ICBC's "scale", after costs. Needless to say, he has a fine grin on his face nowadays. ICBC exploits our ignorance, and procrastination to its advantage. After all, they are very pragmatic when trying to keep a lid on their costs.
The difference lay in the consideration for pain and suffering of the individual which ICBC always plays in its favour, but that the Courts see otherwise. Faced with the weight of overwhelming precedents, ICBC will almost, always back down before going to trial. For the neophyte who doesn't have the persistence and the research clout of a competent legal team behind him, it is indeed wise, if not cost effective to pay for that expertise going in.
One final and important thing to remember: "The weight of full disclosure in discovery applies to both parties". You are under Oath!
