Should patients obtain legal assistance when dealing with ICBC after a car accident? The case of Doan v. ICBC certainly suggests that they should.
Mr. Doan, suffered a brain injury when he was struck down by a car in a crosswalk. As a result of the accident Mr. Doan was left almost entirely disabled and could no longer hold a job. He was subject to epileptic seizures and required to take anti-convulsant medication on a constant basis. His speaking deteriorated, and eventually, he required a wheel chair or walker to get around. The driver of the car admitted liability for the accident.
Mr. Doan and his wife believed that the ICBC adjuster who was handling their claim would represent their best interests, and relied entirely upon his advice. The adjuster advised the Doans that they would be better off without a lawyer. His purpose, he later admitted, was "to keep control" of the claim, a stated objective of ICBC in relation to such matters. "Keeping control" apparently meant assuring that the injured motorist did not consult a lawyer.
Trusting in the adjusters advice, Mr. and Mrs. Doan entered into a settlement agreement with ICBC, accepting $60,000 in return for a release of all further claims against the defendant motorist or ICBC. The adjuster had first offered a payment of $40,000. When the Doans turned that down, he offered the $60,000, telling them that they were getting $20,000 more than they deserved. He advised Mrs. Doan that she personally had no claim, but ensured that she signed the release. Unknown to the Doans, ICBC's own reserve estimate for the claim was approximately $110,000.
The Doan's later challenged the validity of the release. The judge, Mr. Justice Paris, had little trouble deciding that the release was an unconscionable bargain that should be set aside. He found that there was a vast inequality in the positions of the Doans and ICBC. Any pretense on the part of the adjuster to right that inequality by protecting the Doans' interests was in conflict with his duty to see that ICBC paid as little as possible to resolve the claim. In the result, the settlement which the Doans agreed to was substantially unfair.
Setting aside the release, Mr. Justice Paris awarded the Mr. Doan damages of $312,000, including $140,000 for pain and suffering. He also awarded $20,000 to Mrs. Doan as compensation for the services she had to provide to her husband.