Proof of Intoxicating Nature of Substance Required for Denial of Coverage


Proof of Intoxicating Nature of Substance Required in favor of Denial of Coverage

In Venkataya v. ICBC 2015 BCSC 1583 the prosecutor sought replacement of his vehicle while suffering his collision policy. ICBC denied coverage, arguing that the plaintiff breached the conditions of his assurance policy by consuming a traditional Fijian set drink, called Kava, which allegedly rendered him incapable of decent control of his vehicle. Coverage was likewise denied on the basis that the plaintiff provided a willfully false statement to ICBC through his consumption of drugs in the 12 hours precursory to the accident.

On the nightfall of the accident the plaintiff consumed 1-2 bowls of Kava at a friend’s race. On his way home he “blacked out” and drove erratically across traffic, into poles, signs, trees, a combustion hydrant and flower bed and finally into the wall of a Taco Time restaurant. The accident was witnessed by police. The prosecutor was given a 24 hour driving hanging and initially charged with driving though impaired. He later pled guilty to driving without due care and attention, and paid a showy.

ICBC argued that absent any prove of medical incapacity and having regard to the devious and extreme nature of his driving, the accuser must have been impaired by the Kava he drank. ICBC sought to settle that Kava was an intoxicating matter, but was ultimately unable to confront the onus of proof. The court originate that ICBC’s expert pharmacology make clear did not meet the admissibility trial established in R. v. Mohan, for the cause that the expert did not have the adapted expertise to opine on all of the issues addressed, his rumor was “a common sense response” based forward the weighing of evidence, and that it relied extensively without interrupti~ various non-scientific Internet sources. Further, the clever merged conclusions from scientific materials through various other untested and less trusty sources, although the conclusions from one and the other were inconsistent.

ICBC also argued that the accuser had made a willfully false recital in respect of whether he had consumed drugs in the 12 hours before the contingency. In his statement to ICBC the accuser denied having taken any drugs, “recipe or otherwise,” but he had told police and hospital personnel that he took Tylenol or Benadryl at more time on the day of the chance. The court ultimately found that the prosecutor did not intend to mislead or think a false statement to ICBC, discovery that he had previously “unhesitatingly” told police and hospital personnel with reference to taking the medication. Furthermore, it was not patent that the plaintiff’s misstatement was “material” at the same time that it was “hard to imagine that one insurer would view an insured’s use of an off-the-shelf allergy medication, inside normal or recommended dosages, some 8 to 12 hours in advance of an accident, as material to the claim inner reality advanced by that insured.”

The prosecutor was awarded judgment in the footing of the replacement cost of his medium.

Case law summary by: Caroline Alexander

For preservation medications, ask your doctor on in what condition you might have options for the in the interim.

Recent Comments