A reader writes to ask: "Are there rules written in law governing at-fault accidents?"
He is being cancelled by his insurance company after an adjuster ruled him to be partially at-fault for an accident.
The other driver, who hit him on the driver's side of his Ford Explorer as he was making a legal left-hand turn, was charged by the police for causing the accident.
The reader wrote; "This is wrong, it wasn't my fault, I shouldn't be getting cancelled. How do you fight this?"
All provinces use fault rules. These fault rules are derived by case law and claim scenarios.
In Ontario, auto insurers in collaboration with the provincial government drafted the Fault Determination Rules and they were enacted into law as a regulation of the province's Insurance Act.
In comparison, in British Columbia (which has a provincially run insurance system), the Motor Vehicle Act and related case law decisions made by the B.C. Supreme Court are used to determine fault.
The problem is when the rate increases and cancellation penalties that come with being 100 per cent at-fault for an accident are the same for a partially-at-fault ruling.
Here is the fault rule in Ontario that governed this partially-at-fault ruling:
If the incident occurs when automobile A is turning left at an intersection and automobile B is overtaking automobile 'A' to pass it, the driver of automobile A is 25 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile B is 75 per cent at fault for the incident.
In this case, Driver A is ruled to be 25 per cent at-fault, which holds the same rate hike or cancellation penalties as being 100 per cent at-fault.
This fault ruling is arguably a very questionable penalty for the driver who gets hit. One would hope that a driver making a left-hand turn should not bear the same insurance penalties as the driver who hits him, when trying to pass on the left.
It's not easy to for a driver to overturn a fault ruling, but it is possible.
For example, I wrote a letter to the Ontario government, and included hundreds of driver's e-mail comments on the problems they were experiencing with the fault rules. I also met with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and outlined eight specific areas where serious revisions needed to be considered. Did this make a difference? Maybe. (This correspondence can be viewed on the RomanovReport.com).
Two of these areas of concern were:
Being partially at-fault for an accident should not have the same insurance rate or cancellation penalties as being completely at-fault.
If a driver is making a left-hand turn and is subsequently hit by another driver trying to pass on the left, the driver turning left should not be considered to be partially at-fault.
The FSCO has just informed me that, as of Sept. 1, 2010, Ontario Regulation 36/10 under the Insurance Act will state that if you are found to be 25 per cent or less at-fault, you will not be penalized.
In other words, the rule stating that Driver A is 25 per cent at-fault for the accident hasn't changed, but the penalty will. There will no longer be any rate hikes or cancellation penalties if you're ruled to be 25 per cent or less at-fault for an accident.
Given the Sept. 1 amendments to the Insurance Act, I'd call your insurance company's Ombudsman and ask that they consider overturning your notice of cancellation.
Police determine if a law has been broken, the insurance companies determine fault. So are insurance companies above the law? They can't put you in jail, but they can handcuff you when it comes to getting good insurance rates.
So in conclusion, there are many faults in the fault rules. If you disagree with a fault ruling, you can go to court and challenge it.
Lee Romanov is an insurance consumer advocate and creator of http://www.romanovreport.com.
