Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions

[Ed T.]

50 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Considering that a criminal offense was involved in the cause of the damage, what are the chances that there are other parties involved in all this?

The chances are good, but that shouldn't stop repairing the structure. Once the pictures are taken and the car is towed away, I doubt there is much need to keep the "crime scene" around. In fact the TTC already has put in quite a bit of work to clean out the shelter and then build the hoardings (there was a sizeable work crew there for several days). There's the container of something or other parked by the shelter as well. And the hoarding makes it difficult to access the streetcar stop from the east.

No doubt criminal charges are still working through the system, and the car driver's insurance may be fighting paying out. But I don't think the TTC has to wait until the legal process was complete before fixing vehicles or structures damaged in accidents.

Note that the the criminal trial resulting from the August 13 2013 collision with 7036 at Middlefield and Steeles is only now winding its way through the court system. The van driver was found guilty, but sentencing won't be for a while yet. That's how slowly the criminal system can work.

[Xtrazsteve]

More likely an insurance company delaying the damage payout. Criminal evidence would all be lost after a considerable time have past. How long were the police tape up? It can't be longer than a few days.

[leylandvictory2]

2 of the TTC Nova LFS artics' repairs were delayed as a result of the insurance claim.  It took the buses almost a year before both of them were repaired. 

[Ed T.]

So today at Long Branch loop there was a large TTC cube van of the "structure maintenance" variety. And all the info signs on the shelter hoarding have been changed.

Repairs to the structure (we are assured) will be complete by the end of February 2017.

I do notice that the purple container has been removed, though the fencing that surrounded it still lingers. I would think the shelter would be an ideal location for Presto machines (what with all the interchange with GO and MiWay). Plus would be really nice to get next vehicle info, considering there are 3.5 TTC routes coming into the loop (I count 315 as 0.5) so there's always something going on.

[andyman]

On 03/01/2017 at 8:45 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

More likely an insurance company delaying the damage payout. Criminal evidence would all be lost after a considerable time have past. How long were the police tape up? It can't be longer than a few days.

If the driver was in fact drunk his insurance policy is void and they won't pay out anything.

[DL1892]

1 hour ago, andyman said:

If the driver was in fact drunk his insurance policy is void and they won't pay out anything.

What? Insurance will pay out damages to the other party to the maximum of his policy. That's what insurance is for. 

[Xtrazsteve]

1 hour ago, DL1892 said:

What? Insurance will pay out damages to the other party to the maximum of his policy. That's what insurance is for. 

That's not what insurance is for. No way. Otherwise everyone would be drunk driving with insurance company covering their asses. Insurance companies wants to pay the minimum they could pay and walk away. That's why there are fights and legal fees.

Insurance companies don't wants to pay for something when a drunk driver destroys it. Assuming that driver had insurance in the first place. Insurance company usually don't cover drunk driving. It depends on their policy and what they'll pay for. Otherwise if the guy doesn't pay up, TTC would have to sue the guy for damage assuming he has enough money to actually to pay for it.

If a homeless guy with no savings does a lot of damage, both the owner and the owner's insurance suffers. Does TTC even have their own insurance for their building property?

[DL1892]

It indeed does vary policy to policy and province to province.  

Seriously, get real, everyone would be doing it? The fines and tenfold insurance increases are already a deterrent, but some people still feel the need to endanger themselves and others. 

That said, Under the vast majority of policies in Canada, the drunk drivers insurance policy will cover property damage and injuries up to the drivers maximum policies. Obviously insurance companies are out to protect themselves when it comes to settlements, but a DUI does not void an insurance policy that is in effect at the time of a collision, regardless the cause. If you're found guilty of an infraction then you're labelled an at risk driver. 

[Xtrazsteve]

55 minutes ago, DL1892 said:

It indeed does vary policy to policy and province to province.  

Seriously, get real, everyone would be doing it? The fines and tenfold insurance increases are already a deterrent, but some people still feel the need to endanger themselves and others. 

Apparently there is an increase in people impaired driving this year in the GTA. It's getting worst. Increase insurance rates don't help when those that are suspended decides to continue driving without insurance. 

 

[Ed T.]

18 hours ago, andyman said:

If the driver was in fact drunk his insurance policy is void and they won't pay out anything.

Since the case has almost 99.999% likely not gone to court, the driver (who was a 20-something woman as I understand it) is innocent of any crime at this point. Though the licence may be suspended.

As I said before, serious cases will take months or years to be settled. It's obviously impractical to have to wait for the legal proceedings to be all settled for insurance payouts to start. Otherwise, someone wipes out your car, and you don't have a car for a year or two?

[Xtrazsteve]

2 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Since the case has almost 99.999% likely not gone to court, the driver (who was a 20-something woman as I understand it) is innocent of any crime at this point. Though the licence may be suspended.

As I said before, serious cases will take months or years to be settled. It's obviously impractical to have to wait for the legal proceedings to be all settled for insurance payouts to start. Otherwise, someone wipes out your car, and you don't have a car for a year or two?

Basically TTC would have to foot the bill to repair it first (which they should finished) and get reimbursed later.

Another great story where lawyers win and the public lost.

[Ed T.]

11 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Basically TTC would have to foot the bill to repair it first (which they should finished) and get reimbursed later.

Another great story where lawyers win and the public lost.

I am not sure how Ontario's "no fault" insurance would play out here. I would not necessarily assume that the TTC has to pay now and collect later. Again, if someone hits your car, you get it fixed right away. The sorting out of civil and criminal charges happens later.

 On your second point, "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a very old concept, and has nothing to do with lawyers winning. Would the alternatives be any better?

[andyman]

21 hours ago, DL1892 said:

It indeed does vary policy to policy and province to province.  

Seriously, get real, everyone would be doing it? The fines and tenfold insurance increases are already a deterrent, but some people still feel the need to endanger themselves and others. 

That said, Under the vast majority of policies in Canada, the drunk drivers insurance policy will cover property damage and injuries up to the drivers maximum policies. Obviously insurance companies are out to protect themselves when it comes to settlements, but a DUI does not void an insurance policy that is in effect at the time of a collision, regardless the cause. If you're found guilty of an infraction then you're labelled an at risk driver. 

Read your policy, see what it says about DUI.

[DL1892]

8 hours ago, andyman said:

Read your policy, see what it says about DUI.

I have. If I was to hit someone or something my policy covers their damages. Anything above and beyond limits is on me. I would be labelled an at risk driver or denied any subsequent coverage.

There's a reason insurance companies don't like dealing with people who have dangerous drivering records (DUI, reckless etc), and that's because they're a high risk where the insurance company is likely to have to pay out, again. 

As smallspy pointed out, there are other parties involved, namely a pedestrian that was hit, which is where the insurance will be focusing their attention - Not a bus shelter. 

[Ed T.]

TL;DR: smallspy sent us off on a red herring hunt. Once all required evidence is gathered, there is nothing to keep the shelter from being rebuilt ASAP. And while I can see the driver's insurance company dragging its feet, this is a case where it will ultimately pay. There's no question that the car hit the shelter, not vice-versa. There's no question that serious structural damage was done. There's no question of the TTC being negligent by placing the shelter in an unsafe location, seeing as how it's been in the same place since, what, the 1930s? So, yeah, the payee will be the driver's insurance company and possibly the driver in some civil lawsuit if it comes to that.

Longer: the insurance payment does not depend on charges being laid. And I have done a search and see no mention of charges being laid yet. (At the Steeles/Middlefield crash, charges were laid a couple of days later.) So I don't expect charges to be laid at this point, as this isn't the sort of situation where there needs to be a lot of investigative work (such as a murder with no suspect or motive).

Even if charges are laid, it takes years for a criminal case to make it to trial. If a drunk driver hits your car and then a pedestrian, you'd still want to get your car fixed right away, and that's what happens as far as I know. You don't pay out of your pocket to get your car fixed and then wait and wait and wait for the justice system to make a determination in the case.

Anyway, there's no reason for the TTC to drag its feet on this, unless it's some internal reason like budgeting. If so, well the workers, instead of being out in November and December when it was warm, are now working in January in a cold snap.

[andyman]

14 hours ago, DL1892 said:

I have. If I was to hit someone or something my policy covers their damages. Anything above and beyond limits is on me. I would be labelled an at risk driver or denied any subsequent coverage.

There's a reason insurance companies don't like dealing with people who have dangerous drivering records (DUI, reckless etc), and that's because they're a high risk where the insurance company is likely to have to pay out, again. 

As smallspy pointed out, there are other parties involved, namely a pedestrian that was hit, which is where the insurance will be focusing their attention - Not a bus shelter. 

Read it again.

[Ed T.]

13 hours ago, andyman said:

Read it again.

Maybe the insurance won't pay to fix your car, but I'm sure that it will pay for damages you caused.

Anything else doesn't pass sanity test.

So you're a pedestrian and you get hit by a car. Not your fault. Driver is sober, driver's insurance pays you. Driver is drunk....insurace doesn't pay? Then who does? Rembember, yolu are innocent and possibly have no insurance.

[Xtrazsteve]

2 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Maybe the insurance won't pay to fix your car, but I'm sure that it will pay for damages you caused.

Anything else doesn't pass sanity test.

So you're a pedestrian and you get hit by a car. Not your fault. Driver is sober, driver's insurance pays you. Driver is drunk....insurace doesn't pay? Then who does? Rembember, yolu are innocent and possibly have no insurance.

The drunk driver does when that person is proven guilty. If the insurance company paid up front, they'll go after the them. If they don't have insurance, TTC can sue the driver and get whatever is possible out of that person. If no money can be acquired that way and TTC has it's own property insurance, they will have to pay. If TTC doesn't have any insurance and they other party is innocent, then the TTC has to suffer.

Too bad so sad actually exist. If you don't have home insurance and a homeless (with absolutely no asset) burns down your house, you are out of luck. It's consider a misfortune.

 

[smallspy]

On 2017-01-07 at 9:03 AM, Ed T. said:

TL;DR: smallspy sent us off on a red herring hunt. Once all required evidence is gathered, there is nothing to keep the shelter from being rebuilt ASAP.

In theory - yes. You're right.

 

But considering that none of us is directly involved in the rebuild of the shelter, what are the chances that there's more afoot than just a simple rebuild? If they were to rebuild it in-kind, it should take a team of carpenters a day or two to do the work. That it obviously hasn't been done yet would indicate to me then that there's something else going on behind the scenes.

 

Is it a red herring to suggest that damage was caused by a criminal offense causing the delay? Maybe....maybe not. I don't know what the answer is, and thus why I posed the question. Perhaps the delays are more innocuous - dealing with bylaws regarding construction or zoning, or that the building can't be built to its original design. I don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else who's posted here thus far.

 

But to chalk it up to "the TTC is dragging its feet again!1!1!" is more than just a bit unfair without knowing all of the facts now, isn't it?

 

Dan

[Ed T.]

2 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

The drunk driver does when that person is proven guilty. If the insurance company paid up front, they'll go after the them. If they don't have insurance, TTC can sue the driver and get whatever is possible out of that person. If no money can be acquired that way and TTC has it's own property insurance, they will have to pay. If TTC doesn't have any insurance and they other party is innocent, then the TTC has to suffer.

I don't know if the insurance company can or will go after the drunk driver. However, if the drunk driver is found guilty, that's likely several years later. Making innocent victims pay for their own injuries for a couple of years fails sanity test as far as I'm concerned.

There are enough people who rent and have essentially zero assets that the "sue them for whatever we can get" principle fails as well, at least from the victim's point of view.

1 hour ago, smallspy said:

In theory - yes. You're right.

But considering that none of us is directly involved in the rebuild of the shelter, what are the chances that there's more afoot than just a simple rebuild? If they were to rebuild it in-kind, it should take a team of carpenters a day or two to do the work. That it obviously hasn't been done yet would indicate to me then that there's something else going on behind the scenes.

Is it a red herring to suggest that damage was caused by a criminal offense causing the delay? Maybe....maybe not. I don't know what the answer is, and thus why I posed the question. Perhaps the delays are more innocuous - dealing with bylaws regarding construction or zoning, or that the building can't be built to its original design. I don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else who's posted here thus far.

But to chalk it up to "the TTC is dragging its feet again!1!1!" is more than just a bit unfair without knowing all of the facts now, isn't it?

Dan

Well, if there was some issue, the TTC shouldn't have put up multiple signs saying "Construction will be complete by the end of 2016". Maybe it's a customer communications issue, or a work planning/scheduling issue (or both).

I do find it amusing that I sent a complaint in on January 3rd about this, and the next day--and every day after--I see a TTC work van parked at the shelter. I certainly didn't see anyone at work in December, after the plywood hoardings went up.

[Xtrazsteve]

39 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

I don't know if the insurance company can or will go after the drunk driver. However, if the drunk driver is found guilty, that's likely several years later. Making innocent victims pay for their own injuries for a couple of years fails sanity test as far as I'm concerned.

There are enough people who rent and have essentially zero assets that the "sue them for whatever we can get" principle fails as well, at least from the victim's point of view

Let's be realistic. There's no god that's going to save the victims. Suing would require the victim to have money to pay for legal fees in the first place. Yes, this is insane and unfair. If the victim don't have insurance, they are screwed. 

Here's something from the star: https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/01/08/marco-muzzo-wants-damages-reduced-in-lawsuit-over-drunk-driving-deaths.html

He's convicted and still fighting about how much he wants to pay. Did the victims get their money? Probably not yet. Their laywers are saying he's in jail so he's already paying by being behind bars so he shouldn't pay the full damage caused. What BS. 

[Ed T.]

Purpose of liability insurance is to take care of victims of your accident.

Don't confuse insurance payouts, civil suit settlements, and criminal proceeding verdicts. They're not the same thing, though they may be dependent on one another.

[andyman]

6 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Maybe the insurance won't pay to fix your car, but I'm sure that it will pay for damages you caused.

Anything else doesn't pass sanity test.

So you're a pedestrian and you get hit by a car. Not your fault. Driver is sober, driver's insurance pays you. Driver is drunk....insurace doesn't pay? Then who does? Rembember, yolu are innocent and possibly have no insurance.

It depends on your insurance I know cases where they paid out, others they didn't and others after they paid out went after the defendant for reimbursement. 

Most DUI cases not involving death are completed in a year or so.

Supposedly the repairs will be complete by the end of February.

[smallspy]

18 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Let's be realistic. There's no god that's going to save the victims. Suing would require the victim to have money to pay for legal fees in the first place. Yes, this is insane and unfair. If the victim don't have insurance, they are screwed. 

Here's something from the star: https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/01/08/marco-muzzo-wants-damages-reduced-in-lawsuit-over-drunk-driving-deaths.html

He's convicted and still fighting about how much he wants to pay. Did the victims get their money? Probably not yet. Their laywers are saying he's in jail so he's already paying by being behind bars so he shouldn't pay the full damage caused. What BS. 

Your grasp of Canadian law seems a bit tenuous.

 

He was found guilty of drunk driving causing death, and will be in jail for a while. He was found guilty in criminal court of the charges.

 

This is an entirely different case, happening in civil court - the family is suing him and his family for damages, present and future, above and beyond the standard fees that he has had to pay (victim surcharge and the like). The fact that he was guilty of a crime has virtually no bearing (beyond the fact that he was in fact convicted of said crime) in what the eventual outcome of this trial will be.

 

Dan

[FlyerD901]

Jan 18 Board meeting

Transit to the bluffs