How about a referendum on ICBC?

[Merry]

I was reading a story on the net about someone in a car accident in Vancouver, where ICBC determined that it was the other drivers fault but that, because the offending party was from Ottawa, it was up to the injured party to personally go after the Ontario Insurance Company for damages.

I, and the person telling the story, always thought it was your own insurance company that went after the other parties insurance company in this kind of situation, so I was surprised to hear about what happened. Has anyone else heard about this kind of thing happening?

[my5cents]

Whole bunch of errors in the last few posts....

If you are very car savy then you should know that there are 2 values, actually 4 values to every car on the road ...

1 - Retail value ... what a person should expect to sell or pay for a vehicle on the retail market.
2 - Wholesale value ... what a person should expect to sell/trade a vehicle at a dealership.
3 - Actual trade-in value ... what a person actually receives for a vehicle at a dealership.
4 - Actual value ... the price a seller and buyer finally agree on.

You most likely paid retail value for your vehicle at time of purchase (even possibly more than retail), when a car gets written off, you are offered wholesale value with any basic insurance (ICBC or private) unless you opt for more comphrensive insurance such as deprciation value. Now, I don't know what your car was so I'll just take a stab at it .....

For starters... twobits stated that the accident wasn't his fault. Thus the payment for the total loss doesn't come from his "own damage coverage" it comes from the other vehicle's liability coverage.

As a result this claim would have nothing to do with what you are calling "basic insurance". Since as I say the coverage for the total loss is coming from the other car's liability insurance.

Having said that "basic insurance", which I assume is what you are calling basic own damage coverage, compared to the additional coverage of replacement cost, which has limits according to the age of the vehicle, or another agreed value coverage.

As for ICBC paying wholesale, that is completely false. ICBC pays "ACV" Actual Cash Value. This is generally determined by a vehicle appraisal company that collects the ads for vehicles for sale all across the province. When a vehicle is out of the norm, such as a very special condition, an ICBC estimator manually estimates the value.

The value is generally established by the appraisal company, and then offered in most claim centers to the claimant by an ICBC employee that does nothing but settle total losses (not by the adjuster). This person negotiates with the claimant to try get to an amount agreed upon by both. If an amount can't be settled upon then the claimant can go to arbitration, where each side gets an appraiser and they see if they can arrive at an agreed upon amount. If the claimant doesn't like that figure they can go to court.

There is no "book value" for a vehicle, each vehicle is different and is appraised on it's own merits.

The attributes and negatives of a subject vehicle are gathered and those ad and subtract from the estimated value.

I was reading a story on the net about someone in a car accident in Vancouver, where ICBC determined that it was the other drivers fault but that, because the offending party was from Ottawa, it was up to the injured party to personally go after the Ontario Insurance Company for damages.

I, and the person telling the story, always thought it was your own insurance company that went after the other parties insurance company in this kind of situation, so I was surprised to hear about what happened. Has anyone else heard about this kind of thing happening?

There an important and big piece missing from this story. This BC vehicle was obviously not insured for own damage by ICBC. So ICBC wasn't the insurance company for the damage to the vehicle. They had no reason to do anything about the vehicle. If owner of the vehicle held an insurance police for their vehicle with ICBC, then ICBC would be responsible for the vehicle. In that case, prior to liability being established, ICBC would cover the loss under the BC vehicle's own damage coverage under ICBC coverage, collecting the own damage deductible and then would chase the Ontario insurance company for the money.

Insurance companies not co-operating with each other is normal practice in any jurisdiction without government insurance, it doesn't have to involve two different provinces.

I recall as a young man in my early 20's before ICBC, having my car damage to the tune of $1000 by another vehicle, the accident the other car's fault. I went around getting three estimates and called the other driver's (local) private insurance company adjuster. I verbally told him of the three estimates and of the lowest of them in the area of $1000. He said he'd have a cheque ready for me later that day.
I dropped in and received the cheque, when I looked at the cheque it was for about $300 less than the lowest estimate. I pointed this out to the adjuster, as he had made a "mistake". He said "that's what you're getting, if you don't like it sue us".

I could have, but all the trouble, the lawyer etc, I put my tail between my legs and took my loss.

Gotta love private insurance.

[twobits]

The value is generally established by the appraisal company, and then offered in most claim centers to the claimant by an ICBC employee that does nothing but settle total losses (not by the adjuster). This person negotiates with the claimant to try get to an amount agreed upon by both. If an amount can't be settled upon then the claimant can go to arbitration, where each side gets an appraiser and they see if they can arrive at an agreed upon amount. If the claimant doesn't like that figure they can go to court.

There is no "book value" for a vehicle, each vehicle is different and is appraised on it's own merits.

The attributes and negatives of a subject vehicle are gathered and those ad and subtract from the estimated value.

Thank you 5cents. I wasn't going to continue the debate. All played out exactly as you explained right down to the person dedicated to resolving total losses. Conflicting appraisals where the one I engaged was the only one to physically inspect the car, an ICBC jerk who would not bend and the prospect of further costs in litigation causes a person to just give up and walk away shaking their head.

[John500]

My issue with ICBC is that I have no choice for the basics. My other issue is that the government should not dip into ICBC money at the tune of 770 million + more they have taken out and put into general revenue. ICBC is an insurance company. Not a funding vehicle for governments. Another issue is that in case of an accident, only ICBC decides for both parties. And another issue is that I had personally, because of a situation, spoken with ICBC at their SApringfield offices and direct on their help line. Wrong information was given both times. They have no clue as to their own insurance coverage.The only ones that really knows what ICBC covers are the insurance agents from your private companies. And for a change of address I had to wait 45 minutes......

[zzontar]

ICBC scammers fined $850K
by The Canadian Press - Story: 77733
Jul 10, 2012 / 10:00 pm

A BC Supreme Court judge has ordered 11 people and a company to pay about $850,000 in damages for a scheme that involved stolen vehicles being resold after insurance money was paid out on them.

At issue were 12 vehicles that were reported stolen to the Insurance Corp. of BC in 2002 and 2003.

The case is the latest in a series of conspiracy and fraud actions brought against various defendants by the provincial auto insurer over the sale of stolen vehicles.

In his reasons for judgment released Tuesday, Judge Austin Cullen said the vehicles were given false ownership histories and vehicle identification numbers, known as revinning, and then resold after ICBC was notified of their theft.

Cullen singled out Harpreet Awla, his younger brother Gurpreet Awla and Vikram Atwal as the primary conspiracy defendants, none of whom participated in the trial.

"Insofar as Harpreet Awla is concerned, it appears on the evidence that he played a significant role in the revinning scheme, not only in terms of acquiring, disguising and selling the various vehicles, but also in enlisting others ... to become involved in the process based on their particular vulnerabilities," Cullen said

He noted Harpreet Awla also attempted to persuade one of the defendants, Cheri Kostynick, not to testify against him.

According to court documents, Kostynick testified that she knew Harpreet Awla through her boyfriend at the time.

Harpreet Awla was fined $182,496 and ordered to pay $60,000 in punitive damages for his role in the setup.

Gurpreet Awla was ordered to pay $33,000 in special and punitive damages and Vikram Atwal had to pay $122,815 in special and punitive damages.

For her role in the scheme, Kostynick received a $127,341 fine.

Bansal and Sons Diesel Automotive Ltd., located in Burnaby, was fined $12,604 for its part in the scheme, and one of its vehicle inspectors was fined $17,604 in special and punitive damages.

Cullen also fined six others, bringing the total in special and punitive damages to about $850,000.

In August 2011, Cullen found 10 people and one company liable for tens of thousands of dollars in damages for a similar scheme that involved seven vehicles.

At the time, ICBC announced the case was one of several civil actions against 89 defendants.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that ICBC employees were caught taking cars that had been written off and re-selling them without telling the buyers they had been written off and they got one and a half years pay with benefits for that? Same penalty for the ICBC employees who's scheme involved rigging auctions in their favor if I recall.

[my5cents]

Wasn't it just a few years ago that ICBC employees were caught taking cars that had been written off and re-selling them without telling the buyers they had been written off and they got one and a half years pay with benefits for that? Same penalty for the ICBC employees who's scheme involved rigging auctions in their favor if I recall.

ICBC employees, bought vehicles that were damaged. I believe they obtained them prior to their status being changed to "write off". They then repaired them and sold them without divulging that they had sustained the damage.

And that has ? to do with a gang that stole vehicles, disguised their identities with phony VIN numbers ????

I believe they were fired, including a high ranking manager who through a lack of foresight hadn't set up enough checks and balances.

I don't recall any who rigged auctions.

I don't get the point of comparing the two.

[zzontar]

I don't recall any who rigged auctions.

I don't get the point of comparing the two.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... andal.html

At least 22 of the 98 wrecked vehicles repaired at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia's Burnaby facility were bought by ICBC managers at rigged auctions, an internal investigation has revealed.

ICBC paying severance to staff fired in chop-shop scandal
Last Updated: Friday, December 5, 2008 | 12:23 AM ET Comments35Recommend27
CBC News
The ICBC closed this Burnaby facility in February when it was revealed that 98 repaired vehicles were being sold without full disclosure of their accident history. (CBC)
The Insurance Corporation of B.C. plans to dole out $825,000 in severance to employees who were dismissed "without cause" after a car-sales scandal earlier this year.

The scheme involved eight staff members at a Burnaby, B.C., research facility, where formerly written-off cars were being resold after their repair histories were altered.

The Crown corporation said Thursday it dismissed one employee after an internal investigation showed "it was in the company's interests to terminate employment."

Information on two employees who were no longer with the company is being withheld because they have asked the B.C. privacy commissioner to decide on what information will be released.

'Were they just given the money to go away quietly so as not to further embarrass the corporation and the government?'
— Mike Farnworth, Opposition critic for ICBC
For the rest of the group, two left voluntarily and three were reprimanded but remain with the company.

Three top-level executives of the company have left since the scandal broke and the RCMP are investigating the car-sales scheme.

In February, the ICBC closed the Burnaby facility when it was learned that 98 repaired vehicles were being sold without full disclosure of their accident history.

At least 22 of the 98 wrecked vehicles repaired at the facility were bought by ICBC managers at rigged auctions, an internal ICBC investigation found. The facility has since reopened to provide training only.

Opposition calls severance outrageous

ICBC spokesman Mark Jan Vrem said the corporation sought legal advice before deciding on the amount of the package, which involves 18 months' salary, benefits and services to help the workers find new jobs.

"The policies at the time were kind of fuzzy and that's one of the problems because there were inconsistent and conflicting policies in place," Jan Vrem told CBC News on Thursday.

He said the $825,000 severance would be reduced if the fired employees "find new employment during the 18-month notice period."

Opposition NDP critic for ICBC Mike Farnworth said the amount of the severance package is "outrageous."

"I don't know why the government didn't just admit this upfront.… I think it's indicative of this government that has lost touch, is secretive and doesn't like scrutiny," Farnworth told CBC News.

Farnworth said too many questions remain unanswered.

"Were they just given the money to go away quietly so as not to further embarrass the corporation and the government?"

Maybe that refreshes your memory. I'm comparing the 2 because here's what happens when you when you're involved in a scheme and are not an ICBC employee:

A BC Supreme Court judge has ordered 11 people and a company to pay about $850,000 in damages for a scheme that involved stolen vehicles being resold after insurance money was paid out on them.

and here's what happens when you're involved in a scheme and are an ICBC employee:

ICBC spokesman Mark Jan Vrem said the corporation sought legal advice before deciding on the amount of the package, which involves 18 months' salary, benefits and services to help the workers find new jobs.

[John500]

As if ICBC is not in it for the money......Remember 1.7 billion to the Provincial General coffers from ICBC? The government took out twice during the past couple of years totalling that amount. And then ICBC raised the premiums. Its time for competition. ANd if ICBC is that good, there is nothing to worry about. However, with governments dipping in their finances, no wonder ICBC will never have competition. Government loves it.

[hobbyguy]

The choice is really: pay ourselves to have ICBC (any profit goes to benefit us), or pay (probably more) to a private insurer to jump you through even more hoops to get your claim honoured, and the profits go for gold-plated toilet seats on the CEO's yacht.

I'll stick with ICBC thanks.

[LongHaul]

Perhaps the referendum should be on “Do we want surplus funds taken from ICBC and distributed as revenue to the Provincial Government”.

This puts ICBC into the position where they are expected to maximize their yearly net profit which is then distributed to the provincial government. Substitute shareholders for provincial government and ICBC's new objective begins to look similar to that of a private insurance company. Extrapolating forward from this expect to see the issues with private insurance companies that led to the creation of ICBC start showing up. Claim denial whenever possible even if the legal grounds are weak. Don't like it, take us to court (if you can afford it). Don't agree with the settlement for your vehicle write off...so take us to court. ICBC rate structures could change to more resemble those of private insurance companies to improve their yearly profit.

Private insurance companies should look for innovative products to take advantage of customer sore spots with ICBC and increase their market share where they are allowed to compete. One product could possibly be Replacement Insurance for used vehicles. ICBC has it for new vehicles but believe it is not available once the vehicle is more than three years old? Driving an older car that has been well maintained and still has many years of life left? One may be running the risk in the event of a write off what ICBC will pay will be several thousand under what it will cost to replace it with an equivalent vehicle.

Private companies could look into providing legal insurance in the event one has to take ICBC to court to obtain a fair ruling on fault assessment, insurance denial, etc. It would have to be structured to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Possibly by having the claimant put some skin into the legal costs by paying up front a deductible at the time the lawsuit is initiated. The legal insurance could cover the range of what it could cost to access the court system for a complex case, probably around $200,000 to $300,000.
Having this protection in place may assist one when their claim is being processed by ICBC. For example if ICBC sees a possible opening for a claim denial they may decide against denial if they know their chances of winning in court are not good and the claimant has the pockets to take them to court.

Just my thoughts....

[Woodenhead]

The grass is always greener...

[my5cents]

Perhaps the referendum should be on “Do we want surplus funds taken from ICBC and distributed as revenue to the Provincial Government”.
..............
Private insurance companies should look for innovative products to take advantage of customer sore spots with ICBC and increase their market share where they are allowed to compete

IMO the brass at ICBC would welcome legislation that would prevent the government of the day from touching ICBC's reserves.
We are quick to fault ICBC for "giving" money to the government, when the actual truth is the government is "taking" money from ICBC.

The portion of auto insurance that private cannot compete with ICBC for (the first $200,000 liability) doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. It is basic third party liability coverage. I doubt private really wants to compete.

The own damage coverage has lots of room. ICBC is very ridged. Every policy stands on it's own. You can own 6 vehicles and agree that you will be the only operator and ICBC won't give you any reduction at all.

There is a dramatic difference in the usage that some vehicle are put to and the cost of coverage. The only criteria for ICBC on the usage of private vehicles is "pleasure only", "to and from work or school short distance" and "to and from work or school". Many private companies rate also by distance travelled, not so with ICBC.

There are lots of creative ways that private could take own damage business away from ICBC, but ironically I think it boils down to the fact that the majority of private auto insurers just want to attract the very low risk drivers and sit back and count the revenue stream.

As for claim denial and investigation, it is VERY common for private auto insurance companies to pay questionable losses and then cancel or in the least not renew the policy again to that individual, verses investigate questionable losses (I'm talking frauds) and take action.

ICBC on the other hand protects itself by investigating questionable claims and denying and perhaps charging criminally and then subsequently refusing to sell own damage to that individual for a number of years.

The "pay and cancel the coverage" in the private realm was so prevalent in the US that many states had to enact laws to prohibited private companies from just raising rates unless they had appropriate fraud prevention programs in place.

One product could possibly be Replacement Insurance for used vehicles. ICBC has it for new vehicles but believe it is not available once the vehicle is more than three years old? Driving an older car that has been well maintained and still has many years of life left? One may be running the risk in the event of a write off what ICBC will pay will be several thousand under what it will cost to replace it with an equivalent vehicle.

That's a possibility, but for older vehicles the coverage would most certainly be only for collision losses. The fraud exposure for fire and theft would just be too great. Even in the third year model year of replacement insurance, ICBC's rate is way way over that of private insurance companies.

Private companies could look into providing legal insurance in the event one has to take ICBC to court to obtain a fair ruling on fault assessment, insurance denial, etc. It would have to be structured to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Possibly by having the claimant put some skin into the legal costs by paying up front a deductible at the time the lawsuit is initiated. The legal insurance could cover the range of what it could cost to access the court system for a complex case, probably around $200,000 to $300,000.
Having this protection in place may assist one when their claim is being processed by ICBC. For example if ICBC sees a possible opening for a claim denial they may decide against denial if they know their chances of winning in court are not good and the claimant has the pockets to take them to court.

This will never happen.

If you have a good case against ICBC on a liability claim, there are lawyers lining up to sue ICBC on your behalf. They don't charge you, they just take a portion of the settlement.

If you are the insured (ie, you have own damage with ICBC and they won't pay your loss), and you sue ICBC, you are suing ICBC for "Bad Faith", if successful, you are open to get zillions, so if ICBC is denying that type of claim they strongly feel they can defend the action and generally do. If you've got a good case, ICBC will know it and certainly won't risk the huge amount they will have to pay when you win. Thus, likely not something that the masses would flock to buy coverage for.