American Lawyers in Canada

Cross Border Law’s Mark Belanger shares tips to consider when you want to get your employees down to the U.S. for work.

In this video Mark Belanger of Cross Border Law talks about what Canadians need to know when entering the U.S.

Cross Border Law’s Mark Belanger discusses the differences between a Notario, U.S. Immigration Consultant and a Lawyer.

A few days ago President Barack Obama gave a much anticipated update on the issue of US Immigration Reform.

A great deal of support for President Obama, is said to have come from those that want to see this bill pushed through congress, and done so quickly.

President Obama hopes to have the US Immigration Reform policy to congress by the end of the year, though admitted that a serious debate on it likely wouldn’t occur until later in the year.

The implications of such a policy are far reaching and President Obama makes no claim that getting this through congress will be easy. Here’s what he had to say: Continue reading →

Some refer to firms like ours as “boutique”; others say “we specialize” in a certain area of the law.  The Law Society of British Columbia prohibits lawyers from advertising that they specialize, which implies a higher level of education or training.  They do permit lawyers to say that their practice is focused or limited to a specific area of the law.  The lawyers at our firm, Cross Border Law Corporation, are licensed to practice in both United States and Canada, which is unique, in and of itself.

But what truly sets us apart from other personal injury boutique firms is our commitment to Value, not Volume.  Ask a personal injury lawyer how many files he’s currently handling.  Is it 125?  Is it 200 or more?  So characterizes a “Volume” practice—sign up clients, the more the merrier; have a paralegal or non-paralegal “litigation manager” primarily responsible for the file; focus on settling—as quickly as possible—for whatever sum can be achieved with modest effort; next case. Continue reading →

The above article addresses ways to maximize claim value for smaller claims, where the difference between judgment value and settlement value is less than $20,000.  Bear in mind that few adjusters will settle claims for more than fifty cents on the dollar without at least the threat of litigation, so it’s important to know when to engage U.S. counsel to avoid leaving significant value on the table.

The following factors will significantly increase the value of a U.S. claim over a similar B.C. injury claim: Continue reading →

This is a continuation of the last post looking at Comparative Bad Faith Law in BC and Washington. We’ll now move onto the comparison with Besel v. Viking Insurance…

COMPARE  Besel v. Viking Insurance, 146 Wn.2d 730 (2002)

Basic facts:

D, insured by Viking, crashes his pickup truck and injures his passenger, Besel.  Viking did not respond to Besel’s phone calls and letters regarding settlement, and in fact lost the claims file at some point during negotiations, causing delay to the evaluation of the claim.  Besel provided clear evidence that his damages exceeded $200,000; D’s policy limit with Viking was for only $25,000.  Viking failed to respond to numerous offers from Besel to settle his claims for $25,000, and ultimately indicates its intent to defend the claim on issues of damages and comparative fault (despite the fact that no WA court has ever assigned more than 50% fault to the passenger in a vehicle driven by an intoxicated driver). Continue reading →

This will be a two part post. First an introduction will be provided and then the outline of Shea v. M.P.I.C., 55 B.C.L.R. (2d) 15 (1991). In the second part of this post (coming next week) a comparison will be made with Besel v. Viking Insurance, 146 Wn.2d 730 (2002) and then we’ll explore how the Washington Supreme Court held and the result.

Both British Columbia and Washington have recognized a cause of action for bad faith in the context of an insurer’s failure/refusal to settle a claim within policy limits once liability and damage in excess of limits has become reasonably clear.  Likewise, both jurisdictions recognize the right of an assignee (usually the tort plaintiff) to pursue a bad faith claim held by the tortfeasor against his insurer.

The typical approach involves an assignment of the defendant’s bad faith rights in exchange for an agreement by the plaintiff not to seek judgment amounts against the defendant’s personal assets in excess of the applicable insurance limits.

The difference in the approaches from the two jurisdictions, as you will see, lies in the fact that Washington’s more robust bad faith law provides claimants with a mechanism for obtaining an assignment of these rights through a consent judgment in lieu of trial, whereas the British Columbia approach offers no avenue for obtaining these rights until an excess tort judgment has been obtained at trial. Continue reading →

Question #1:
Is it possible to bring a bad faith claim for acts which are not specifically proscribed by the Washington Administrative Code?

ANSWER: Absolutely. The WAC’s only set minimum standards for insurer conduct, and compliance with the WAC’s alone does not guarantee an insurer has avoided a bad faith claim.  The duty to act in good faith is “fairly broad and may be breached by [a variety of] conduct short of intentional bad faith or fraud.”  See Truck Insurance Exchange v. Vanport Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 764, 58 P.3d 276 (2002).  The trier of fact – typically a jury – will be charged with determining if the questioned conduct rises to the level of bad faith.  See Kallveig, supra.

Question #2:
These standards seem pretty amorphous and plaintiff-friendly.  Is there any good news for insurers in the case law?
Continue reading →

This is a continuation from my last post on insurance bad faith in Washington and British Columbia

(11) Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, claimant, or the physician of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring subsequent submissions which contain substantially the same information.

(12) Failing to promptly settle claims, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
Continue reading →