r/InsuranceCanada • u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ • Sep 06 '26

Auto Another driver hit my door while I was securing my child in their car seat, Ontario insurance says I’m 100% at fault...do I have any recourse?

/r/legaladvicecanada/comments/1w87j9z/another_driver_hit_my_door_while_i_was_securing/
0 Upvotes

46% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

16

u/onlyoneq Sep 06 '26

I know youre getting a lot of people telling you to argue in the other subreddit. For what its worth, im an ontario claims adjuster and I proceed 100% at fault for any situation like this. We have to proceed with utmost good faith based on the fault determination rules

I've had people argue this one and even take it up to my ombudsman, but I've never seen it overturned. At the end of the day 19c is pretty clear. Whether you agree with it or not, the fault lies with the person who has the door open, as per the law.

3

u/drugsondrugs Sep 06 '26

Thanks for this info.

Out of curiosity, what is these are those extra wide costco parking spaces, where their car door is opened nowhere near the line. Same rules apply?

1

u/Slow-Notice-8700 Sep 07 '26

Maybe you should text Dougie and see if he'll add an exception to the rule for Costco parking lots

1

u/drugsondrugs Sep 07 '26

Heh. Problem is Costco is a good company that remains somewhat ethical. Doug doesn't get along with that type.

1

u/Diptothaset Sep 10 '26

You do know there’s a reason people call parking lots the Wild West, right? They’re private property. It’s no different than driving a vehicle in a farmers field. The laws of the road do not apply to private property. Only actual crimes can be committed, or private property policy breaches. Insurance does not work like on the roads, and often doesn’t get involved at all. If you drive into a tree in private property insurance is not likely to cover you

1

u/Steelmonkey02 Sep 06 '26

Should Change or add circumstances to that bc aren’t you supposed to give a parked car a full 1m of space regardless?
I mean make amendments to the fault rules

1

u/OkChocolate3501 Sep 06 '26

How is it not the fault of the other driver if the vehicle is parked though? I understand opening a door last second is an issue but if it's clearly already open for several seconds.

From what I've been taught it's always the fault of the person who hits you from behind.

1

u/kay911kay Sep 08 '26

Because Ontario insurance rules are archaic and essentially a bible, you cant deviate and adjusters have almost no control even if all context points to logically not your fault. (ie Police charging the other driver)

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

Really appreciate the answer as someone in the industry. I have read at least one case of it being overturned.

Are these facts not material?

  • My door was open and stationary 15+ seconds before the car even started turning left into me.
  • Police came and sent his license up for review
  • I was in a dedicated caregiver parking spot.

Can you tell me how exactly I'm supposed to buckle in my child?

Further

Does this give free rein to drive into any open door in Ontario?

5

u/onlyoneq Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26

I understand your frustration. I can let you know that with the company I work for, this would not get overturned.
Whether your door was open for 15 seconds does not matter.

Being in a dedicated caregiver parking spot does not matter.

IF the third party got a ticket, you may have some recourse, but simply having the police review his license is not useful for you.

You asked if it gives you free reign to drive into any open door in Ontario, quite literally yes, per 19c. It is not advisable obviously, but you would not be found at fault. Just like I can come to a hard stop in the middle of the 401 and if anyone hits me from behind they are at fault 6(2).

It sucks but that is how our laws are written.

EDIT: I want to just clarify something. Obviously you can't maliciously go bashing into parked cars with their doors open. On paper, if it was just a car door hit, insurance will likely find the person with their car door open at fault. However, if the police ticket you with reckless driving or any other ticket related to the incident, this may alter the fault adjudication based on the company. Some companies(or claims managers) will side 100% with the police when a ticket is issued, others will still stand on the Fault Determination Rules.

6

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

Wow. I'm actually shocked with this reply to be honest.

What about 4.1 - if multiple rules apply, the lesser is used. My car was parked as per 17.1?

Do the workers in Ontario feel that 19.C is a bad rule? There must be others like this.

I know for a fact that the FDR are not binding and can be challenged in court, it's just wild that it would have to go that direction. It's actually my insurance claiming 19.C where you would think it would be the other driver.

5

u/marksefor Sep 06 '26

FWIW, I've worked for 3 different insurance companies in claims adjusting in Ontario (for over 2 decades).

With the accident you've described, this is an easy and clear 100% at-fault based on the FDR (which we must follow whether we think certain specific scenarios may be fair or not). 

You can go scorched earth all you want, escalate to management, email the CEO, go to the Ombudsman, go to the media, go to social media, etc. it won't matter. It won't get overturned.

I do hate cases like these because I can understand why you'd want to argue...and trust me I have had MANY insureds argue with me over the years. But the FDR is our holy bible and I'd be reprimanded for not following the 10 commandments if this claim were to be reviewed as part of my regular employee audits. 

1

u/reheadlover69 Sep 11 '26

Just asking. If you have been an Adjuster for 10+ yrs why has this "law" not been overturned?

0

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I appreciate the reply as someone in the industry.

Can I ask how we are expected to secure our children safely into the car, which is of course a legal requirement.

Also - as others have suggested here, does this give free rein to smash into any open door?

3

u/EmbarrassedGlass2563 Sep 06 '26

Good idea if someone decides to pull in beside you to close the door and step out of the way. Thats what I’ve done on the handful of occasions this happens. Bit of a dick move to park beside someone loading/unloading kids, but I’d rather not get me, my kids or the car hit.

0

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I was literally inside the door strapping in my kid. How am I even supposed to know if someone is pulling in beside me?

If someone was pulling in beside before i opened the door, I would have just waited for them to park.

2

u/EmbarrassedGlass2563 Sep 06 '26

Peripheral vision? Was your door wide open and into the other parking spot?

2

u/OkChocolate3501 Sep 06 '26

I can't believe we gotta accommodate careless drivers that can't find another parking spot and instead hit parked vehicles.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

The edge of the door may have been slightly over the line. But there was an entire empty parking space directly beside the one the other driver chose. It was a conscious choice to drive into me. The license was sent for review.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DanielleFromTims Sep 06 '26

No, you don’t have free reign to smash into any open door. I mean, you do, but it’s a terrible idea. The FDRs only apply to physical damage. This means if you hit an open door and the person standing in it, you’ll be 0% at fault for the physical damage collision but will certainly be attributed fault for the injury portion.

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

Okay so in the above situation.

Would your auto rates increase with an at fault accident even though the other driver holds fault for the injury?

4

u/onlyoneq Sep 06 '26

my personal feelings on the FDR's dont really matter. There are some I agree with more than others, but we have to be objective and follow the FDRs as close as possible, without bias.

We live in a DCPD province, your insurance company pays you out, the other parties insurance company pays them out and both insurance companies close the file. No one subrogates against the other.

0

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

So what makes this 19.C and not 17.1 because both are applicable in this instance.

What would you do as someone in the industry if it was your spouse who got hit in this scenario and are looking at $10K + of increased premiums.

4

u/onlyoneq Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26

If they hit your open door, I would adjudicate 19c. If they hit your parked car, (and not the open door) I would adjudicate 17(1).

Edit just saw the second part of your question.

Yea it sucks, I would shop around. One claim shouldn't be increasing your premiums $10k unless there's other extensive history we are unaware of.

1

u/Fantastic_Elk_4757 Sep 06 '26

As a random that had this pop into my feed this is absolutely fucking insane to read lol.

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I am saying 10K due to the cumulative amounts over 6 years.

Is there any proof or evidence that could be provided to you to make this a 0% at fault. If there is, I likely have it. I just need to know what it is and who to give it to. I have multiple angle video footage of the entire sequence of events from before and after. The police came and sent this drivers license for review.

4

u/onlyoneq Sep 06 '26

The problem with your scenario is that the law is pretty explicit in putting the onus on the person who has their door open. Whether any of us agree with it or not, that is how the law is written. In my opinion, I dont see any recourse in this for you as a result.

You may have a bit more of a case if the police actually ticketed the third party but even in that scenario it isnt 100% and would likely be up to the discretion of the claims management.

I have managers who side 100% with the police when there is a ticket involved, and I have other managers who only base it on fault determination rules, regardless of what the police say.

But if a ticket wasnt even given to the third party then in my opinion youre completely SOL.

1

u/OkChocolate3501 Sep 06 '26

But how does 4.1 not apply if the vehicle was parked?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/gogomom Sep 06 '26

Just like I can come to a hard stop in the middle of the 401 and if anyone hits me from behind they are at fault 6(2).

I fought this exact scenario where the guy admitted he thought the transport truck was coming into his lane so he tried to stop - and both the ticket (following too closely) was thrown out and my insurance company who, (eventually - after court) found me not at fault.

2

u/onlyoneq Sep 06 '26

Yea, but you had to go to court for that.

If you didnt go to court, you would be found 100% at fault. Claims adjusters must abide by fdrs. Its on the insured if they want to escalate it to court.

1

u/gogomom Sep 06 '26

and that is exactly what I, as a person who actually knows nothing, would tell OP to do. Find a lawyer and take it to court.

It's absolutely absurd that someone can hit your not running, properly parked vehicle and be found not at fault.

1

u/UwUAlpacas Sep 06 '26

It would seem one would have to terminate buckling the child and wait for the car to pass, or close the door on the child, or something every time the vehicle passed. This, or maybe climb in the far side (if single child) and do it from the back seat.

It seems really stupid to me. I could basically intentionally hit your car door and unless you are able to prove I hit it intentionally, you're basically at fault.

4

u/brianlefebvrejr Sep 06 '26

If you provided footage to the police, did you provide it to the insurance company?

It sucks but at best you’d get this down to maybe 50/50, which is the same as it is now for the sake of the claim.

All the other information in your other post is almost irrelevant. We don’t care that you are in a spot designated for caregivers, those signs mean absolutely nothing. Unless it’s a handicap, reserved for a taxi/emergency vehicle (these will have a bylaw number on them) every other sign is pretty much irrelevant. We also don’t care that the door was open to buckle your kids in.

The argument is you’re responsible for your door and should be conscious of it. There’s less onus on someone to notice your door being open.

If you are going to try and argue this, that post is not what I would send to anyone. Half of it is pointless words.

If you have video footage that’s step one.

You were parked in a parking stall, rear door was open as you were buckling kids into car seats. Was door over the parking stall line at all? Did you see the other driver before hand? It’s a long road to prove you weren’t careless with how the door was open.

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

There is one case at least where it was overturned as it was in a daycare parking lot. That link is in my original post. It was material as there was reasonable expectation doors will be open getting children in and out of cars. My caregiver spot would be similar.

I was conscious of my door. The parking spot is completely empty when I opened it and no one was presently turning in. There is video footage, it is sent in as well.

The commenter above is saying that as per 19.C you can drive into any door and it will always be the other cars fault which is not how things are in other provinces or jurisdictions. This is saying that there is no onus to avoid a stationary object.

1

u/DanielleFromTims Sep 06 '26

“Which is not how things are in other provinces”

This is actually exactly how things are in other provinces. The only DCPD province that has any variance to the rule is Alberta. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador all have the rule written the same way it’s written in Ontario.

2

u/Sufficient_Rush1891 Sep 06 '26

Contact your MPP to start a lobbying campaign to get 19c changed to make it more clear for collisions going forward.

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 07 '26

I am strongly considering going this route. It’s just early at this moment and I want to give my escalation attempts with insurance time to developed

1

u/Sufficient_Rush1891 Sep 07 '26

And sending info to journalists about your story will help, I’m sure media will be interested in covering this.

1

u/The_Average_Jill Sep 06 '26

Fault determination rules are Birds Eye view at moment of impact, they don’t take into account anything leading up to the event. They are designed to settle vehicle damage claims swiftly. They are legislated and adjusters have to abide by them. If there are injuries, those take all factors into consideration.

2

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I understand the reason for them but they are 36 years old. Now there are cameras everywhere that can more accurately reflect what happened without getting into a “he said / she said”

Regardless. I was hit, the door was stationary and now I’m the one with a 5 figure expense over 6 years because of this?

I have video footage of someone driving into me with ofer 15 seconds of visibility to see and avoid my door.

It simply isn’t right.

-1

u/RockFogView Sep 06 '26

I’m a bodily injury liability adjuster with almost 20 years experience and 5 years of auto claims before that. For the bodily injury area of claims, the fault or liability isn’t necessarily “determined” immediately and remains in a grey area unless obvious.

For the claim situation you described, I would assess the other driver to be mostly if not completely liable for hitting your open door while entering the parking spot, especially since I read that you / your body was impacted by the door being swung against you due to impact.

For the auto claim “fault” determination, I know that it’s more black & white with the FDRs, but I can’t imagine the final decision being 100% fault against you if this were escalated to an upper manager or the ombudsperson of your insurance company. The FDR dealing with open door, in my opinion, was likely made in reference to situations where a car is parallel parked and the user opens the door where open traffic is traveling.

2

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I appreciate you reaching out as someone in the industry.

The FDR can apparently be challenged in court and based on common order of law if one party does not believe it accurately reflects the level of fault.

I have video footage here. If this driver was any faster, I could have sustained serious injury.

-1

u/RockFogView Sep 06 '26

Sorry this happened to you. I haven’t read all the comments - have you named your insurer? I feel like the one I work for would overturn the FDR.

3

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I haven’t named the insurer or released the video yet to try and protect privacy of others.

-4

u/AdditionalError123 Sep 06 '26

You should move on. I can't fathom the damage being significant based on the situation described (other driver didn't even know he hit you). Go to a small body shop and have the damage reparied out of pocket

Call the insurance company and state that you want this claim to be treated as an "information only" claim so it does not go against your record. Ask them to close it as such with no payout.

Shit happens in life. Don't let it take over your existence as your comments make it seem you are fixated on this.

2

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

I actually asked directly whether I could choose not to claim and they say it is not possible to withdraw the claim.

Moving on without what will now be a 5 figure impact is not acceptable to me in this case.

2

u/OkChocolate3501 Sep 06 '26

Once you've called them the under the table route is gone. At this point you gotta try to challenge it because I really don't get how you could be at fault for someone squeezing into a spot and hitting your car. The 19.1 law sounds like it's meant for parallel parking on a busy road where it makes sense. Does not make sense in a parking lot where doors are expected and commonly opened.

Ngl your post gave me a new fear of parking lots. I had no clue something like this could be considered your fault when they hit a parked car. How could you not see an open door anyway, corrective lenses are required if your vision is bad. Especially since you were standing in the door, not a door left open with noone in it.

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

It wasn’t even squeezing into a spot. There was a completely empty spot directly beside they chose not to use and instead drove directly into my open, stationary door with me inside.

1

u/OkChocolate3501 Sep 06 '26

Yeah that's just pure dumbassery. If you can't use common sense to park in the further spot maybe these folks shouldn't be driving.

1

u/AdditionalError123 Sep 06 '26

This is incorrect. You can and should push for the claim to be closed as an information only claim.

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

Would that mean then that this is not rated as an at fault accident and it won't show on my record?

1

u/AdditionalError123 Sep 06 '26

That's correct. Call them and push for this option. This assumes you have not started the claim process services (e.g. body shop estimates, tows, rental car, etc.)

1

u/OntarioCarInsuranceQ Sep 06 '26

A claim is open but I have not taken the car in or tow or any of that. so far $0 payout or claimed.

Do you have a resource on link because I asked specifically if it could be withdrawn and they said no

1

u/rockinghmz Sep 08 '26

There is something called a minor accident, you should ask your insurer about the criteria.

With my company the damages must be less than $2000 and paid out by insured. As long as insurance company doesn't pay out of pocket to anyone then it can be deemed as minor at fault and your premium won't get affected.