Miro’s vehicle and Stephanie’s vehicle collide with each other in New Brunswick.

In a direct compensation property damage arrangement, each insured claims from their own insurer for the portion of vehicle damage for which they are not at fault. The absence of collision coverage does not prevent recovery of the not-at-fault portion where direct compensation applies. Miro’s total physical damage is $4,000 and he is 50 percent at fault. Therefore, he can recover the 50 percent not-at-fault portion: $4,000 × 50 percent = $2,000. Stephanie’s total physical damage is $2,000 and she is also 50 percent at fault. She can recover $2,000 × 50 percent = $1,000 from her own insurer. Option B and option C incorrectly involve recovery from both insurers, which is not how direct compensation is structured. Option D wrongly assumes full recovery despite the assigned fault and then subrogation between insurers. The correct settlement follows the fault percentage and each insured’s own insurer pays the recoverable not-at-fault portion. References/topics: Automobile Insurance; direct compensation property damage, fault apportionment, collision coverage, automobile physical damage claims.