Fault Determination Rules

Study guide: Exam 6C

The Fault Determination Rules are a regulation prescribing, by accident scenario, the percentage of fault assigned to each driver in an automobile collision. They apply to first-party coverages — DCPD and collision — and are applied mechanically from the physical facts, without regard to weather, road conditions, driver skill, or evidence about who was actually careless.

• The rules are diagrammatic. Ontario's Regulation 664 sets out numbered scenarios — rear-end, left turn across traffic, lane change, parking lot, uncontrolled intersection — each with a fixed apportionment, usually 0/100, 50/50 or 25/75.
• Mechanical application is the point. Certainty and speed are worth more than accuracy in a high-volume, low-severity coverage. Two adjusters looking at the same collision reach the same answer without negotiation, which is what makes DCPD's low expense ratio achievable.
• They can be "wrong" in the individual case, and the exam expects candidates to say so: a driver who rear-ends another because that driver braked maliciously is still 100\% at fault under the rules. The regulation trades individual justice for administrative efficiency.
• The rules govern first-party recovery and rating; they do not bind a court in a tort action for bodily injury, where common-law negligence and contributory negligence apply and can produce a different apportionment on the same facts.
• Rating consequence. An at-fault determination under the rules typically triggers a surcharge and loss of claims-free discount, so the rules directly affect the driver's premium — which is why a determination that a driver considers unjust reaches the regulator as a complaint.
• Fault is assigned in increments (0, 25, 50, 75, 100 per cent), and a driver assessed at 50\% or more is generally "at fault" for rating purposes even though only half the fault was assigned.

Applying the Rules Mechanically Driver A stops at a red light. Driver B, following, strikes A from behind. B claims A stopped abruptly and unnecessarily. Under the Fault Determination Rules, how is fault apportioned, and what if the facts were investigated further?

Answer 100\% to B. The rear-end scenario assigns full fault to the following driver, and the rules direct that fault be determined "without reference to the circumstances in which the incident occurs" beyond the scenario itself. B's explanation is not a defence under the regulation.

Consequences:

• B's insurer pays B's collision claim (subject to deductible) and B is recorded at fault, losing claims-free status and likely receiving a surcharge.
• A's insurer pays A's damage in full under DCPD, with no deductible applied for a 0\%-at-fault insured in most provinces, and A is not at fault for rating.

In a tort action for bodily injury arising from the same collision, the court is not bound by the regulation. If B proved A braked without cause, a court could apportion contributory negligence to A. So the same accident can produce 100/0 for property damage and, say, 80/20 for bodily injury — an inconsistency that is a feature of the design, not an error in it.