Hit by a drunk and I don't have insurance

Mid July 2012 I was hit at 6pm by a drunk driver. That's when my hubby decided to tell me that he didn't take care of the insurance as he was supposed to. So, I got charged with driving without insurance. Car is in my name.

Inuries were minor - all of us had aches/pains, hubby had seatbelt burn on neck and daughter in backseat sustained two bruised knees. Drunk couldn't walk - but that had nothing to do with the accident! Both cars towed - I had to pay for my tow fees and then had to take a taxi home at my expense.

My car was a write-off, the drunk was arrested at the scene for blowing over 80. I was in court for first appearance tuesday for no insurance charge. I received disclosure from crown. Disclosure tells me that the drunk admitted to being drunk and at-fault for the accident. It also tells me that the drunk doesn't live at the address on his license, and believe it or not, the drunk got a free ride home from the cops! I had to pay for mine.....

I contacted his insurance company - they refused to pay based on Insurance Act. However, they sent all three of us the typical paperwork for accident benefits. I haven't done anything with them as of yet.

Anyhow - few questions here.

1. Is not knowing you didn't have insurance any defense at all? The car is in my name - but, I asked my hubby to take care of the insurance payments, etc. because I was dealing with some significant family court issues at the time, working full time days (he works nights) and was overwhelmed with everything. I really shoulda asked about it - but to be honest, I was hiding my head in the sand (overwhelmed financially - $13G in legal fees for family court, no child support coming in and an ex that deserves to be locked up!)

2. My car is black book valued at 7500 - repair estimate is over 8500. Tow fees home and then to repair shop for estimate, as well as the damned cab fees...all make my loss an additional $500. Is there any way at all to recoup any of these losses? Would I have any chance of success in small claims?

3. Should I commence a Personal Injury claim (ie fill in the paperwork provided by the drunk's insurance company) or use a PI lawyer to commence action?

I have consulted a civil lawyer who advised against suing the insurance company for damages as he couldn't guarantee any success.....

I'm potentially $15Gs down as a result of the drunk driver. His fine is $1000. Doesn't seem like it was the intention of the law at all to me.

If you look at it You got off lucky.

No insurance is a very bad charge too.

What was your fine for that?

There is no excuse for no insurance.

Sorry

Cheers

Viper1

viper1 wrote:

If you look at it You got off lucky.

No insurance is a very bad charge too.

What was your fine for that?

There is no excuse for no insurance.

Sorry

Cheers

Viper1

Was that intended to be helpful? Or argumentative?? Because helpful it definitely isn't. Didn't answer one of the questions I asked - but couldn't help yourself from posting a nasty comment eh? And the excuse for driving drunk would be.....................

the drunk ceased to be insured when he got in his car, turned the key and drove the 10 MIN WALK to the McD's he was heading for.

Since when the insurance wasnt in force?

Julio wrote:

Since when the insurance wasnt in force?

I really wish I could answer that - but I can't give an answer I know to be true. My husband has been very vague on the whole subject - and now he's mute on it because I demanded he leave the home until I have this sorted out a bit. He initially told me a couple of weeks....but I can't seem to get a straight answer. I signed a new policy in December 2011 - so, my guess is sometime after that it was cancelled. Bank records can't help, he provided his account for the monthly payments.

I can't prove to prosecution that I have insurance now - because I don't.....I don't have a car to insure any longer. I have to find something to drive and I don't even want to talk to the insurance company about this yet, as I'll never be able to afford the insurance as a result. At the moment, I'm catching rides or borrowing dad's car.

mom wrote:

viper1 wrote:

If you look at it You got off lucky.

No insurance is a very bad charge too.

What was your fine for that?

There is no excuse for no insurance.

Sorry

Cheers

Viper1

Was that intended to be helpful? Or argumentative?? Because helpful it definitely isn't. Didn't answer one of the questions I asked - but couldn't help yourself from posting a nasty comment eh? And the excuse for driving drunk would be.....................

the drunk ceased to be insured when he got in his car, turned the key and drove the 10 MIN WALK to the McD's he was heading for.

And the excuse for no insurance .......?

Wake up.

You would not be in this spot.

Now you have all kinds of bills and you are facing a large fine.

You ceased to have insurance when you did not pay it.

He should not have been on the road and you should not have been there either.

He admitted his guilt but you cannot accept yours.

Cheers

Viper1

mom wrote:

Mid July 2012 I was hit at 6pm by a drunk driver. That's when my hubby decided to tell me that he didn't take care of the insurance as he was supposed to. So, I got charged with driving without insurance. Car is in my name.

Inuries were minor - all of us had aches/pains, hubby had seatbelt burn on neck and daughter in backseat sustained two bruised knees. Drunk couldn't walk - but that had nothing to do with the accident! Both cars towed - I had to pay for my tow fees and then had to take a taxi home at my expense.

My car was a write-off, the drunk was arrested at the scene for blowing over 80. I was in court for first appearance tuesday for no insurance charge. I received disclosure from crown. Disclosure tells me that the drunk admitted to being drunk and at-fault for the accident. It also tells me that the drunk doesn't live at the address on his license, and believe it or not, the drunk got a free ride home from the cops! I had to pay for mine.....

I contacted his insurance company - they refused to pay based on Insurance Act. However, they sent all three of us the typical paperwork for accident benefits. I haven't done anything with them as of yet.

Anyhow - few questions here.

1. Is not knowing you didn't have insurance any defense at all? The car is in my name - but, I asked my hubby to take care of the insurance payments, etc. because I was dealing with some significant family court issues at the time, working full time days (he works nights) and was overwhelmed with everything. I really shoulda asked about it - but to be honest, I was hiding my head in the sand (overwhelmed financially - $13G in legal fees for family court, no child support coming in and an ex that deserves to be locked up!)

2. My car is black book valued at 7500 - repair estimate is over 8500. Tow fees home and then to repair shop for estimate, as well as the damned cab fees...all make my loss an additional $500. Is there any way at all to recoup any of these losses? Would I have any chance of success in small claims?

3. Should I commence a Personal Injury claim (ie fill in the paperwork provided by the drunk's insurance company) or use a PI lawyer to commence action?

I have consulted a civil lawyer who advised against suing the insurance company for damages as he couldn't guarantee any success.....

I'm potentially $15Gs down as a result of the drunk driver. His fine is $1000. Doesn't seem like it was the intention of the law at all to me.

1 No

2 Small claims court.

3 Not sure.

Cheers

Viper1

viper1 wrote:

mom wrote:

viper1 wrote:

If you look at it You got off lucky.

No insurance is a very bad charge too.

What was your fine for that?

There is no excuse for no insurance.

Sorry

Cheers

Viper1

Was that intended to be helpful? Or argumentative?? Because helpful it definitely isn't. Didn't answer one of the questions I asked - but couldn't help yourself from posting a nasty comment eh? And the excuse for driving drunk would be.....................

the drunk ceased to be insured when he got in his car, turned the key and drove the 10 MIN WALK to the McD's he was heading for.

And the excuse for no insurance .......?

Wake up.

You would not be in this spot.

Now you have all kinds of bills and you are facing a large fine.

You ceased to have insurance when you did not pay it.

He should not have been on the road and you should not have been there either.

He admitted his guilt but you cannot accept yours.

Cheers

Viper1

Again, not helpful but rather a comment stated to make yourself feel better.

I don't think I had any excuse for no insurance. I stated I did not know I didn't have insurance - merely fact - not excuse. Personally, I think I should be able to rely on my husband....but apparently I can't. I didn't get in the car KNOWING I was uninsured. When asked by the officer I admitted that I didn't have insurance and I was summoned to court. Not accepting my guilt here IS NOT THE ISSUE. I think I've owned up to that one, hence the summons to court....so, please, keep your preaching to yourself because it really isn't helping or answering any questions.

Admitting his guilt should also include compensating those for their losses as a result of his selfishness and illegal activity. In my opinion he's pretty damned lucky he hit my car rather than the pedestrian that happened to be crossing the street as well - he should be thanking his lucky stars he didn't kill anyone - because, the drunk doesn't have insurance either when they choose to drive drunk.

I'm in a situation, I've asked for some advice.....didn't ask for your opinion, didn't ask for a reprimand and I certainly don't find anything you have to say even in the slightest bit helpful. Perhaps you like to advocate for drunk driving - maybe you're a drunk that beats charges on a technicality....I have no idea......nor do I care. BUT FOR THE FACT THAT HE WAS DRUNK, MADE AN ILLEGAL LEFT TURN AND SLAMMED INTO MY CAR.....My car wouldn't be a write off and nobody would have been injured. My lack of insurance certainly didn't cause this accident, nor did it cause the drunk to drink.

Is there anyone here with something helpful to add?? I was under the impression this forum existed so people could potentially have thier questions answered and find some helpful information. I can get insulting comments and people's opinions on facebook......

Driving without insurance is what's known as a strict liability offence. That means that not knowing you were uninsured is a possible defence, but only if you exercised due diligence. In short, you'd need to show the Court that you took all reasonable steps to obtain insurance for your motor vehicle and had every reason to believe you were still insured on the date of the offence.

Now I don't mean to downplay your personal situation, but I don't believe an expectation that your husband had paid for the insurance would be sufficient in itself for this defence.

Most paralegals offer free consultations. Might not hurt to at least speak with one of them regarding your situation.

Stanton wrote:

Driving without insurance is what's known as a strict liability offence. That means that not knowing you were uninsured is a possible defence, but only if you exercised due diligence. In short, you'd need to show the Court that you took all reasonable steps to obtain insurance for your motor vehicle and had every reason to believe you were still insured on the date of the offence.

Now I don't mean to downplay your personal situation, but I don't believe an expectation that your husband had paid for the insurance would be sufficient in itself for this defence.

Most paralegals offer free consultations. Might not hurt to at least speak with one of them regarding your situation.

I agree - I should have been more "on top" of it - but, in all reality when your spouse says they took care of it.....you really should be able to believe it. It's the only car we have with me working days and him working nights, we didn't really need two cars, so he's screwed himself as well - he's carless too. At the time, it was nice to have someone take care of something for me considering what I was dealing with......but, that I can't change now....unfortunately.

I find the whole insurance system very confusing...... I can't understand the drunk's insurance company's willingness to cover any personal injuries in this situation, but refusal to cover damages caused by that same accident......it's baffling and doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.....

I feel very victimized - by both my husband and the drunk. My complaint isn't with the police or the charge, I understand the necessity behind insurance and the need to charge offenders. AT the scene the police were very empathetic about my situation, but empathy doesn't pay my bill either. I'm just trying to get out of this mess the best way I can.

I understand that you think drunk driving is much worse than driving without insurance, but unfortunately the consequences could be just as bad. both were not supposed to be driving on the roads so you're both at fault. Fact is you neglected your responsibility and you took that risk every time you took your car. I mean you are obliged to carry your insurance papers with you when driving. Keeping that attitude, that you were not as wrong as the other guy will only set you up for failure in court. All I can think of to help you in this situation is having your husband testify to this. Check out ticketcombat for some additional helpful information and search Canlii with their search engine for your charge. It will produce all the relevant cases and show you the successful and unsuccessful arguments.

I'm not a lawyer (but do have an interest in law), so please don't take this as legal advice.

You could attempt to sue the drunk driver in small claims for damages. The cost to you is minimal but time and effort can be formidable. I am not sure of your possible success though - you would have to convince the court that although the accident was caused by the defendant illegally driving drunk, you're lack of insurance does not come into play, in causing your losses, which it obviously does - i.e. if you had insurance you wouldn't be suing him for the cost of your car as your insurance would have covered it. However, driving drunk and causing an accident which was no fault of your own, should carry some civil penalty to the drunk driver.

Good luck

Oh, and I'm not condoning or minimizing the fact that driving without insurance is a no-no. I think enough people have advised you of this; I was just looking at it from your point of view in regards to recouping losses.

G35Dalf wrote:

I'm not a lawyer (but do have an interest in law), so please don't take this as legal advice.

You could attempt to sue the drunk driver in small claims for damages. The cost to you is minimal but time and effort can be formidable. I am not sure of your possible success though - you would have to convince the court that although the accident was caused by the defendant illegally driving drunk, you're lack of insurance does not come into play, in causing your losses, which it obviously does - i.e. if you had insurance you wouldn't be suing him for the cost of your car as your insurance would have covered it. However, driving drunk and causing an accident which was no fault of your own, should carry some civil penalty to the drunk driver.

Good luck

Thank-you. I've been doing some looking up, and I'm finding the whole thing confusing. From the databases I've perused thanks to a poster above, I'm finding that the penalties are often reduced for various circumstances. I think the penalty of losing my car worth in excess of the fine really should be ample under my circumstances. The penalty of no insurance is meant to be prevetative against people choosing that over the cost of insurance. I think I've potentially paid that price two-fold.

I am curious about liability under Criminal Code, which is where, I believe the DUI charge to fall....correct me if I'm off-base, as I've said - it's confusing me!! Under criminal code - isn't there some sort of civil liability? I came across this:

No civil remedy for an act or omission is suspended or affected for the reason that the act or omission is an offence.

In the Criminal Code - trying to figure out what it means!!

Thanks for your help. And no, driving without insurance is def not a good idea and I don't condone it either. I just can't help but feel that the drunk is liable for the actual accident. It's a tough pill to swallow....

I am going to call BS on the not knowing you had no insurance.

By law insurance companies send registered letters to the owner of the car advising them of the cut off. If it was your car you would have gotten that letter.

The fact that you lost your car will carry no weight as to the penalty. Here it is minimum 5k if you actually fight it in court and lose. If you go on for a plea bargain they drop the fine to 2400. I have never see them drop a charge when an accident is involved.

OPS

OPS Copper wrote:

I am going to call BS on the not knowing you had no insurance.

By law insurance companies send registered letters to the owner of the car advising them of the cut off. If it was your car you would have gotten that letter.

The fact that you lost your car will carry no weight as to the penalty. Here it is minimum 5k if you actually fight it in court and lose. If you go on for a plea bargain they drop the fine to 2400. I have never see them drop a charge when an accident is involved.

OPS

Or my husband fetched that letter from the post office using his id which lists us at the same address, with the same last name - which is all you need to pick up a registered letter. He retrieved my passport the same way. As he works nights, I work days, he's first to the mailbox, first to the post office, first to the bank.....he drives me into work everyday and takes the car, returning to pick me up at the end of my day.

Call BS - I could care less. I have a solid history of having insurance in my name since I've owned a car - the first one of which was in 1987. I've had 4 accidents in the last two years including this one, none of which were my fault. The most recent accident was in October of 2011 - my insurance was valid then. Having a pink slip in the glove box with an expiration date that is still valid only gives the indication that insurance is valid. I signed a policy renewal in December which I faxed myself to the insurance company from work. I haven't even finished paying for the car yet - it was also a car I loved immensely - so please, why would I knowingly drive it without insurance under all those circumstances?

Please don't tell me that it isn't possible to deceive people....it's entirely possible.

you might want to search more on due diligence as well, you might have a chance. A way corporations protect themselves with this defense is how they prove they had a system in place that verifies periodically some elements. In your case ,you could possibly argue that your couple act as an organization, and that within your "organization" you have elected your husband to make these verifications periodically, such as pay the bills, etc. If you have bank account that shows your husband is the one taking care of the financial transactions. Maybe you have a letter between you and him that says who's doing what in the couple. Anyway, it's just a thought.

And dont take it personal from OPS (or anyone else). He still brought you some valuable information in his post that you ought to prepare a good defense about. your sister, husband, your dog could have picked up a registered letter is still not enough, even if you never picked up the letter and it got sent back is still negligent. Many cases lost like that.

Having your husband testify that he got the registered letter and lied about it to you, could have a different outcome. Remember the burden is on you to prove you were unaware, just as any reasonable person would be lead to believe.

As for the letter from the insurance company, here's what the province says about deemed date of service:

Deemed date of service

(2) Notice sent by registered mail under clause (1) (a) or by mail under clause (1) (b) shall be deemed to have been given on the seventh day after the mailing unless the person to whom the notice is sent establishes that he or she did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond his or her control, receive the notice. 2000, c. 26, Sched. O, s. 4.

Here's a case of due dilligence, not from Ontario and from which the previous quote doesnt apply, but you'll understand a lot more about due dilligence. Check all related decisions also by clicking "search for decisions citing this decision" at the top:

R. v. Miller, 2006 NBPC 2 (CanLII)

Basically, the related decisions are here (they will give you a lot of insight on due diligence):

Hill v. R., 1973 CanLII 36 (SCC)

R. v. Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (SCC)

R. v. Lowe, 1991 CanLII 2557 (NS CA)

R. v. MacDougall, 1982 CanLII 212 (SCC)

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., 1970 CanLII 178 (SCC)

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC)

R. v. Tutton, 1989 CanLII 103 (SCC)

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 1991 CanLII 39 (SCC)

- The general conditions of the OAP4 will stipulate how the insurance contract can be canceled for non-payment of premium (Registered letter), and has been tested in court.

- I'll hold my comments on the no insurance and the situation surrounding it (I will add that it closely resembles similar no insurance circumstances I'm aware of).

- Further to previous posts, you are very lucky. You could have caused injuries and damages to others in an accident which would put you in serious financial hardship.

- The other insurance company isn't offering to pay for your injuries, they are fulfilling their obligations where their insured caused injuries to others. There is much more to Accident benefits coverage than I need to detail, but in this case the accident benefits on the drunk driver's policy will apply to all parties involved in the collision (including the drunk driver). This is mandatory and this coverage can not be denied. The drunk driving will breach the conditions of the policy and voids their coverage for physical damage.

- Ontario auto is under direct compensation, you claim under and are compensated by your own insurer regardless of fault (this system exists as policyholders do not have to wait for lengthy resolutions on fault or payment, you are paid and the insurers subrogate accordingly). Again, they drunk's insurer is following their legal obligation.

- If you had insurance, your physical damage would be paid out by your insurer (then they would subro the drunk's policy, and then the drunk's insurer would sue the pants (and all future pants) off the drunk (As they would to you had you caused injuries/damages).

- That is the insurance side of it, and why you could not pursue the insurer for property damage.

Thanks Thunderwriter for the simplified explanation of insurance. I've been baffled about the accident benefits and the insurance company's willingness to handle that, despite their not handling of the physical damages. Makes it a little simpler.

I know I was lucky that all of this unveiled in an accident that I was not at fault for....and without serious injury. It still would have been a whole lot easier to swallow if it all came out in a routine traffic stop and I wasn't dealing with two different problems here - the lack of insurance charge and the demo'd car.

From your perspective, is there any reason why I couldn't pursue physical damages through small claims court by suing the drunk directly? I'm not looking for huge payouts, etc. and the idea of pursuing PI doesn't really sit well with my sensibilities. I'm just looking for a way to get compensated for some of the financial damages I've sustained as a result of this - which I'm pretty sure anyone would do if they could. Just like the drunk is probably consulting criminal/DUI legal assitance to see how he can minimize the damages to him.

Julio wrote:

you might want to search more on due diligence as well, you might have a chance. A way corporations protect themselves with this defense is how they prove they had a system in place that verifies periodically some elements. In your case ,you could possibly argue that your couple act as an organization, and that within your "organization" you have elected your husband to make these verifications periodically, such as pay the bills, etc. If you have bank account that shows your husband is the one taking care of the financial transactions. Maybe you have a letter between you and him that says who's doing what in the couple. Anyway, it's just a thought.

And dont take it personal from OPS (or anyone else). He still brought you some valuable information in his post that you ought to prepare a good defense about. your sister, husband, your dog could have picked up a registered letter is still not enough, even if you never picked up the letter and it got sent back is still negligent. Many cases lost like that.

Having your husband testify that he got the registered letter and lied about it to you, could have a different outcome. Remember the burden is on you to prove you were unaware, just as any reasonable person would be lead to believe.

I never stated that the insurance company didn't do their part appropriately, because I have no reason to believe they didn't. Nor did I believe it was a defence that the letter was picked up by someone else, therefore, I did not receive it, therefore, I have an out....because that wouldn't be logical either. The no insurance situation is entirely the fault of my husband and I - him for allowing the policy to be cancelled and me for trusting that the details were taken care of. I am a previous social worker -- and the one thing I've learned in that line of work is one should NEVER assume anything about people's situations - and what they're going through. All of this also unveiled to me a gambling issue on behalf of my husband - therefore the reason why the insurance payments defaulted and also why I wasn't made aware - it was an iceberg tip. It's taken two months to get past the iceberg ...... I'm now dealing with the issues as a result. The insurance, along with unpaid cellular bills, water bills, etc.

Ironically, the MTO sent a letter to my home indicating that they believed that the car was unisured and when plate renewals come I would have to show proof of insurance - but the letter came a couple of weeks after the accident - just a little too late. And before that is jumped on - I don't believe the ministry had the obligation to tell me earlier - in fact, I was surprised to see that they sent out notifications like this at all.

I was really just wondering if not knowing the car was uninsured is a defense at all? I can't obviously know what I haven't been told.

im not saying/implying the insurance didnt do their job, its obvious they did and they always do. Im talking about a due diligence defense for yourself so that you can sue the drunk because you had every right in your mind to be on the road with your car while he did not. Re-read my last 2 posts and it will answer your last question.

mom wrote:

BUT FOR THE FACT THAT HE WAS DRUNK, MADE AN ILLEGAL LEFT TURN AND SLAMMED INTO MY CAR.....My car wouldn't be a write off and nobody would have been injured. My lack of insurance certainly didn't cause this accident, nor did it cause the drunk to drink.

I don't want to be unhelpful. But one way of looking at this, that I think is germane with respect to the Insurance Act, is to consider the same situation only the other when driver is not intoxicated. That is, he or she merely made an avoidable driving error. So no crime was committed; only inattention or, perhaps, incompetence. I think that, in that case, your lack of insurance (due to your husband's negligence) does leave you exposed.

Another possible way of viewing this is: suppose you had made the same illegal left hand turn (obviously this now quite hypothetical) and hit the otherwise innocent drunk driver. His complaint would be that, not only was he apprehended in his inebriation (and now facing criminal charges) due to someone else' driving and not only was his car a write off, but that other driver had no insurance!

Im wondering, if the guy wasnt drunk, but still his mistake and got seriously injured. Could he sue her because she wasnt even supposed to be on the road in the first place since she wasnt insured?"

Julio wrote:

Im wondering, if the guy wasnt drunk, but still his mistake and got seriously injured. Could he sue her because she wasnt even supposed to be on the road in the first place since she wasnt insured?"

He would be indemnified by his insurer and they would go after the uninsured party.

mom wrote:

Ironically, the MTO sent a letter to my home indicating that they believed that the car was unisured and when plate renewals come I would have to show proof of insurance - but the letter came a couple of weeks after the accident - just a little too late. And before that is jumped on - I don't believe the ministry had the obligation to tell me earlier - in fact, I was surprised to see that they sent out notifications like this at all.

I was really just wondering if not knowing the car was uninsured is a defense at all? I can't obviously know what I haven't been told.

This was a joint initiative in an attempt to curb uninsured vehicles from renewing their stickers. Prior to this there was no interchange between the MTO and the IBC/Insurers. If a vehicle had no valid insurance when it came time to renew the sticker/permit, you would be unable to renew (with plenty of warning).

Without full confidence: not knowing a car is uninsured when you are the registered owner is not a valid defense. Borrowing someone's car and being told it is insured - would have more bearing.

Thunderwriter wrote:

- The general conditions of the OAP4

Correction; OAP 1. Ontario Auto Policy, available online at FSCO's website. This is the standard driver's auto policy. Typo on my part, the OAP4 is a commercial garage auto policy.