Novocastrian

I figured it out and it was shortly prior to Feb. 2008.

Souvy

It can't have been February. I was there, which means it was in March (the convention I go to happens in March).

Zoe Bell

have you registered yet

Souvy

Not yet but expect we will soon. The office is largely empty now and I'm on vacation until the 3rd.

Zoe Bell

ditto

geedee

Have not been here for a while and was shocked to hear this news concerning Oakvillian. I am so sorry to hear it. The bus company should be sued for everything it has.
Oakvillian, I can only imagine the distress. There's nothing I or anybody can say to make it any better, but I will be saying prayers for you and your family and I am certain they will help. God bless, be strong.

dbd33

That seems to me unnecessary and unhelpful. Bus driver error is inevitable and something for which they will be insured. It's an horrific circumstance but not one that can be improved by vindictive action against the uninvolved.

Tangram

+1

Oakvillian

Actually, it is a necessary part of the procedure. There are two parts to a claim against the bus company - the short-term accident benefit claim is settled between our insurer and theirs, but a claim for long-term needs requires that a suit be filed for damages - it's a tort claim under common law and there's no way to start that process without filing suit. I was not happy to learn that - I'm not interested in a suit for any kind of vindictive or vengeance standpoint against the driver, the bus company, the school board or any of their insurers, but since that's how the rules work, that's what has been set in motion.

Oakvillian

July 2007. One or two of the PMs sent to exchange cellphone numbers etc are still in my archive.

Novocastrian

I didn't think to look in there. But I remember the evening well, and fondly.

BristolUK

This sounds a bit like that case that was reported in the newspapers some time ago.

I don't recall the details but initially there was a report about someone suing someone and within a couple of days it was reported the insurance company either instigated or insisted upon it as essential.

Almost Canadian

An action doesn't have to happen (the insurers could simply pay up) and, if it does happen, it will be the fault of the insurers for refusing to do so.

I really hope you don't get to experience how painful the litigation process is in Canada and I really do hope the lawyer doesn't have you on a contingency fee that will see upwards of 30% of Rosie's damages go to the lawyer. This is one area where the process in England and Wales is light years ahead of Canada. I find it completely obscene that, damages for future appliances and procedures that Rosie may need, are calculated by careful analysis to ensure that her future needs are accommodated, and then the lawyer takes X% of them, knowing full well that, by doing so, Rosie's needs will suffer.

As you will find out soon, loss of future earnings (which results in the huge awards in England and Wales that the media reports on) are converted to a "loss of capacity" claim here which reduces the award massively.

I apologise for being the bearer of such shitty news at such a time.

Almost Canadian

As I have stated on here before, the insurers insist upon litigation as they know that they have deeper pockets than the injured party, and they know that there are minimal cost consequences to them for proceeding. While I was happy to act for insurers in England, I would never do so here.

Tangram

I think Db was referring to this part "should be sued for everything it has" rather than the process itself.