In the interests of accuracy, the comments of Werner Antweiler need to be addressed.
Antweiler: Well, of course, [the lawyers] would say that because what is fair in their minds is getting exactly what they ask for. That, of course, is something that ICBC has to push against, because they are speaking for all of us who pay insurance premiums.
Fact: This is an overly simplistic, polarizing and therefore misleading opinion. Lawyers negotiate on behalf of their clients against what the courts have determined as reasonable compensation. ICBC has an obligation not just to premium payers but also people injured in car accidents to do the same. Both parties must because if they can’t agree on a resolution then a court imposes one.
Antweiler: What is fair is really hard to ascertain because pain and suffering has no single measure.
Fact: There are established ranges of quantification for non-pecuniary damages determined by years of court precedent. The court is beholding to neither the plaintiff nor the defendant.
Antweiler: It’s very much an issue that is not easily defined because it’s decided at the point right after the accident and it doesn’t look forward.
Fact: Nothing is “decided at the point right after the accident”. Awards are made in consideration of both past and future impacts on plaintiffs’ lives as the effects of the injuries are manifested at the time of trial or settlement.
Antweiler: So, current settlements must be speculative, and the courts have been erring on the side of caution. They’d rather give the plaintiffs a little more than what they asked for simply because they don’t want to have them to unnecessarily suffer somewhere down the road.
Fact: The courts decide cases on evidence and court precedent. They seldom give the plaintiff more than they ask for. The norm is for the judgment to come down within the parameters set by the parties at trial.