Article content continued

Would no-fault really be back in play if the government loses those cases? Eby was asked Thursday. He just smiled and exited the scrum.

He’d hinted about no fault earlier in the year when his ICBC reforms first ran into opposition from the legal profession. But then, the prospect was hypothetical.

Now, the implied threat comes against the backdrop of a courtroom defeat for his effort to rein in use of medical and other experts in auto insurance cases.

ICBC will book a one-time hit of $400 million on the year’s financial statements over the loss on the medical experts case, according to Eby.

But he’s also facing challenges over his efforts to divert smaller claims to a civil tribunal for resolution and to limit awards for pain and suffering for so-called “minor injuries.”

“If those were to fail in court, it would be catastrophic and we would have to look at absolutely everything in terms of going forward from that position,” he told reporters.

Defeat on the latter two reforms would mean a further $1 billion hit to the books, reckons Eby. But he believes both have a better chance of surviving a court challenge than did the limitation on medical experts.

Earlier this week, the attorney general linked the trial lawyers to a $2 billion line item in the ICBC financial statements: “This is the first year we’ve reported these numbers, so they definitely were eye-opening for me.”

Granted, a large part of the $2 billion was payments to accident victim clients via their legal representatives. But as Eby noted, many of those lawyers would be working on commission and taking a hefty percentage of the settlement.