re Sharples v Daymak Royer Batteries re Sharples v Greenwit

Work in progress.  Part 4. 
Errors and omissions exempted:


My layman's views on these BC court claims.

re Sharples v Daymak Royer Batteries
re Sharples v Greenwit Minyu et al


Kellyann Sharples does not mention fire insurance (policy) in her government-subrogated claim.

The two claims did not state that Sharples actually saw the ignition.

The claims state that Sharples was already in bed asleep when Tim arrived late and charged his battery pack in another room.

Sharples did not actually see which battery charger Tim used but her claim alleges it was a Daymak.

Sharples and Tim had "many" scooters and a variety of chargers covering a variety of battery chemistries. 

Did Sharples and Tim Lilley have a Tenant's insurance policy?  Most apartment owners require tenants to purchase insurance.  If so, that would imo negate a Workmans Comp payout.   Did an insurer deny her claim because the chargers and packs were no longer in the approved list?   (I saw several unapproved stairlift power supplies in the last few months.)