Defendant’s counsel claims that the case of Vorasarn v. Manning (1997), 30 B.C.L.R. is identical to this case. I disagree. In Vorasarn, the medical report obtained was specifically for the purpose of the plaintiff’s claim of benefits under s. 99 of the Regulation. Further, the plaintiff and the I.C.B.C. employee agreed that the plaintiff and defendant were both insured by I.C.B.C., and that the report would not be disclosed to the I.C.B.C. adjuster responsible for the plaintiff’s tort claim against the defendant.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.