I was referring to to the links that you posted and not what happens in Ontario but its very similar. His vehicle is being paid for by ICBC is that not the case? To recover the insured depreciated value of his Neon it is between him and ICBC is that not the case? If he is not satisfied with his payout then he sues ICBC is that not the case? The only way this lady can be liable for damages is if the damages exceed her policy which is 200K minimum, is that not the case?
Yes, I agree that if he sues ICBC for damages they will represent themselves and not him. Frankly, if it is a beef over the value of his car only and other expense related issues I believe the rules prevent him from naming the lady in the action. This is because ICBC has "in law" taken responsibility for covering owned vehicles. Losses from catastrophic personal injury is another thing all together.
OK, here is the guts of the matter; the court or ICBC doesn't give a damn how much he owes on this Neon. That was his personal choice. No one forced him to borrow on the car. If he got himself into a negative equity position the courts and insurers could care less. Read your policy. Find the section that states financing costs PRIOR to the loss will be reimbursed. The rules of the game are all written somewhere by provincial law. It's not something left to interpretation every time there is an occurrence.
Bottom line for Flash and millions like him is that going into negative equity on vehicles is problematic. That is why folks when they buy new and finance should buy the waiver of depreciation. Generally, after 2 years their negative equity position is not too bad, but there again what one buys is a big determining factor.
