Toronto Injury Lawyer Blog
Some people are very unlucky. The act of getting into an accident is very lucky in and of itself.
The person is simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time; and as a result, they’ve been involved in a serious accident and sustained very serious injuries.
Sometimes these people are the in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but on multiple occasions. So, instead of being involved in one accident, they are involved in two, or three accidents.
It doesn’t just have to a car, bike or motorcycle accident. It could be a lot of things. One car accident; one bike accident; one slip and fall accident; one dog bite. It doesn’t matter because the impact to the Plaintiff is all the same. It just adds to their damages, injuries, pain, suffering and their ability to carry out a normal life. Just when you thought you were on your way back to making a recovery, or returning to work, the second, or third, or even fourth accident completely derails all of the hard work you’ve put in to your rehabilitation. This experience can be incredibly frustrating and depressing.
Things don’t get better when insurance lawyers look at the situation. In fact, many insurance lawyers like to hear that there are multiple accidents.
Why is that? Are they actively rooting for the person to get into an accident because they find enjoyment in the pain and suffering for another human being? Absolutely not.
Insurance defence lawyers and insurance adjusters aren’t bad people per se. They are simply looking out for the best interest of their respective clients. The best interest of their clients are, more often than not; the opposite interests which an innocent accident victim has in mind.
The Plaintiff accident victim wants to maximize the value of the claim; and to recover as much money (or benefits) as they can out of the case.
The Defence side has the opposite in mind. They wish to pay as little as possible (or nothing if they can) in order to defend the claim; or to make it go away in its entirety.
So, one of the Defendant’s strategies is to ask a Plaintiff whether or not s/he has been involved in any subsequent accidents AFTER the accident giving rise the the subject claim.
There are some very good reasons for this.
For starters, the Defendant can determine whether or not the Plaintiff’s injuries were directly caused by the first accident, or by the subsequent accident. If the injuries were caused by accident #2; then the insurer’s risk and exposure is reduced significantly.
The defendant insurer will also love know whether or not accident #2 was a car accident or not. Car accidents, or accidents arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle can be very problematic for a Plaintiff because of the statutory deductibles.
Think of the statutory deductible as a secret credit which the defendant insurance company and the at fault driver gets to apply against the claim. It’s there to protect them and to save them money. That’s it. There are limited protections for an innocent accident victim. But, there are layers and layers of protections for the at fault driver. It’s not fair, but Ontario’s car insurance system was never created to be fair in the first place.
In 2026, the deductible (or secret credit) currently stands at $47,913.01. This applies for any award on general damages under $159,708.71. So, if the general damages are assessed at $100,000; the award to the Plaintiff would be reduced by $47,913.01; leaving the Plaintiff with only $52,086.99.
If there are 2 car accidents, with similar or exacerbated injuries; then the Plaintiff has to deal with 2 deductibles. Those deductibles quickly add up much faster than the general damages stack up. A Plaintiff would be facing $95,826.02 in deductibles which is a lot of money. With two accidents, the case starts a hole of just under six figures before it even gets off of the ground. These are hard concepts for innocent accident victims to handle. They aren’t fair, and reflect a system which has been developed to protect defendants, instead of fairly compensating Plaintiffs for their injuries. It has never sat right with me that someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is already starting their case nearly $50,000 in the hole.
Another thing which a subsequent accident does is create chaos and conflict between insurers. Both will try to pass the blame for the Plaintiff’s injuries onto each other. This passing of the buck is a very common tactic that our personal injury lawyers see. No insurer wants to take on full accountability for what happened, particularly if there was a second accident which may have led to the Plaintiff’s problems.
When this sort of thing happens, it’s productive if the insurers can work together on a funding formula. What this means is that there is an agreement between insurers as to what proportion of the damages each will pay; in the event that they have to pay for anything at all. That funding formula can be worked out early on, or at the 11th hour.
Let’s say that a funding formula has been worked out between two insurance companies. Insurer A agree to pay 70% of the claim. Insurer B agrees to pay 30%. Once that happens, both insurers will work in tandem to get as low a figure as possible from the Plaintiff in the form of a settlement, or at trial. If the Plaintiff agrees to resolve the cases for $100,000; that means that Insurer A will pay $70,000; and Insurer B will pay $30,000. When insurers cannot work out a funding formula, it can get even messier with a Plaintiff agreeing to settle his/her claim with Insurer A, but not with Insurer B. This can take place in many legal and complicated forms. In Ontario, lawyers can use a Perringer Agreement to settle with the settling Defendant; but not with the non-settling Defendant in order to limit the potential liability of the Defendant who is in agreement to resolve the matter.
