MPI decided you were at fault for a car accident. That decision can cost you your deductible and your Driver Safety Rating — and it can be challenged at a fault determination hearing in Small Claims Court, where the Court decides fault on the evidence.
After a collision, Manitoba Public Insurance determines which driver was at fault — and in what proportion. As MPI explains on its own site, its adjusters try to settle fault the way the courts likely would, using The Highway Traffic Act, past court decisions, and the facts of the collision. Under Manitoba law, the drivers involved can sue each other for the deductible and liability amounts, and the courts have the final say. Neil Kaplan represents drivers through MPI’s review steps and, where necessary, in Small Claims Court.
MPI describes its adjusters’ process: they gather statements from the drivers, witnesses, and passengers; compare the vehicle damage against the drivers’ descriptions; and may review police reports and visit the accident scene. MPI notes that reports from impartial (independent) witnesses carry the most weight. The assessment takes into account the facts of the case, past court decisions, the rules of the road, and common sense.
MPI makes this point itself: a traffic court decides only whether a driver is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of a specific offence, while MPI looks at the bigger picture — how the collision occurred and who likely caused it. MPI’s own example: a driver acquitted of careless driving after hitting a parked car may still be assessed at fault for the collision, because the court answered a narrower question than MPI does. An acquittal therefore does not automatically change a fault assessment — and a fault assessment is not a conviction.
MPI publishes the route. First, discuss the file thoroughly with your adjuster, so you understand the rationale and the adjuster understands the facts as you see them. If you still have concerns, ask for a supervisor or manager review. If you are still not satisfied, a Customer Relations Officer can review the file. The formal step is Small Claims Court: because the courts have the final say over fault, MPI states that it will accept the court’s decision. A fault case is therefore built like any other evidence case — statements, photographs, damage patterns, and any independent witnesses — the same material MPI itself says carries the most weight.
Yes. MPI explains the difference itself: a traffic court decides whether you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a specific offence, while MPI decides who likely caused the collision, looking at all the circumstances. An acquittal does not by itself change MPI’s fault assessment.
Your deductible is recovered from the other driver’s third-party liability coverage in proportion to their fault: 100 per cent at fault means you recover all of it; 25 per cent at fault means you recover 25 per cent. MPI notes this applies when it knows who the other driver is and insures both of you.
MPI states that an at-fault collision moves you down five levels on the Driver Safety Rating scale. MPI also offers the option of buying back your claim — repaying what MPI paid out — so the claim does not negatively affect your rating, though it remains on your driver abstract.
No. MPI says responsibility in parking lots is based on each driver’s actions immediately before the collision — which driver had the right of way, and who was in the main aisle or feeder aisle. MPI does sometimes assess 50/50 where both drivers contributed equally, or where conflicting evidence does not allow a conclusive answer.
MPI’s published process is: discuss the file with your adjuster; request a supervisor or manager review; then ask for a review by a Customer Relations Officer. The formal route is Small Claims Court — you sue the other driver, the court decides fault, and MPI accepts the court’s decision.