Incorrect principal operator & denial of insurance

[my5cents]

But, do you think a private auto insurance company would ?

[LoneWolf_53]

I believe there are a few, few and far between, that would make a bit of an effort to go the extra mile. ICBC is not one of them.

BCAA is from what I've seen.

[my5cents]

I believe there are a few, few and far between, that would make a bit of an effort to go the extra mile. ICBC is not one of them.

BCAA is from what I've seen.

Perhaps you should understand the difference between an "Insurance Company", "Insurance Agent" and "Insurance Broker".

[LongHaul]

This information could be useful to anyone who qualifies for the Senior's Discount
on their ICBC insurance.

Renewing my ICBC insurance was cheerfully told I qualify for the Senior's Discount.
Not something I wanted to hear but getting a Seniors Discount seemed a positive.

Naively thought this was a just a simple discount like one sometimes gets in a retail store.

The agent asked if the vehicle would be driven to work or school. Replied “no” without elaborating thinking the 6 days allowed for driving to work/school was more than enough.

However reviewing the new documents noticed the wording was different in the vehicle use section.

Asked if anything changed with coverage or restrictions from what I had before.

This resulted in another agent getting involved and a discussion on the restrictions if one accepts the Senior's Discount. The agent provided considerable verbal information on this.

Eventually rather than depend on my understanding of the verbal explanation asked if ICBC provided a brochure describing the restrictions that come with the Senor's Discount. Apparently not. The agent then printed pages from the Basic Insurance Tariff.

Wonder why ICBC doesn't include the one page table describing the Rate Class one is insured for with the insurance papers? Has much more information than what is under vehicle use on the insurance papers.

Some of the information the agent provided as I roughly recall it was.

“With the Senior's Discount you cannot drive to or from work, or anyone else, or loan the vehicle to someone who will be driving it to or from work or school.

You cannot drive a relative to and from work.

You can use the vehicle for volunteer work as long as there isn't any remuneration of any kind.”

The volunteer work is an exception I assume as there isn't any payment for services. Hopefully any free tokens of appreciation aren't considered remuneration.

The agent stated with the Senior's Discount even if one has to use the vehicle just one day to get to work think of it as driving without insurance coverage while going to and from work.

Looking at the section in the tables regarding driving to school found it curious a vehicle is not considered being driven to school if one takes a non certificate or a non credit course or a course that is not beneficial to one's career or job prospects. Assuming interpreted this section correctly??

Anyway best ask questions on restrictions before accepting the Senior's Discount. If it doesn't fit your vehicle usage at least this saves the time to back it out or in worst case saves one from a possible denial of insurance.

Information from the documents provided by the agent from the Insurance Tariff for the Senior's Discount and the one for Pleasure Use follow. Hopefully typed them correctly. Could not find them on the Internet.

Vehicle Use Rate Class
Pleasure use only : 005

Owner or lessee, if leased vehicle, age 65 or over, and
Principal operator age 65 or over


1. Vehicle must be registered in the name of an individual or leased to an individual.

2. Vehicle not driven to or from, or part way to or from, work.

3. Vehicle not used for business or commercial use.

4. Vehicle may be used on not more than six (6) days in a calendar month to drive to or from,
or part way to or from, school in order to attend school by the owner/lessee or the principal
operator.

5. Parents may, without restriction to the number of days, drive their child of school age and
any other children at the same time to or from, or part way to or from, the school in which
their children are registered.

The following people are also considered to be parents for the purpose of this extension:

a) Any person employed by the parents of the children being driven, to perform
household duties which include the care of those children

b) The grandparents, foster parents, and stepparents of the children being driven

c) Any person living in the household of the child

6. A vehicle is not considered as being driven to or from, or part way to or from, school
unless the person using that vehicle is enrolled in:

a) A course that is part of a certificate, diploma, or degree program offered on a full-time
basis by a school, college, university, or any other educational establishment

b) A course for which credit may be allowed for the completion, on a part-time basis, of
a certificate, diploma, or degree program offered by a school, college, university, or
any other educational establishment, or

c) A course that is directly related to or beneficial for the advancement of a student's
current or intended career

7. In cases of joint ownership or lease, one of the owners or lessees must be age 65 or over and the principal operator must be age 65 or over.

The table for Rate Class 1 follows:

Pleasure use - vehicle not usually driven for other purposes
(excluding vehicles owned and operated by a person 65 years of age
or over)

Vehicle Use Rate Class
Pleasure use 001

1. A vehicle rated 001 or 051 may be used on a total of not more than six (6) days in a
calendar month for use under rate class 002, 003, 004, 007, or 013.

2. Parents may, without restriction to the number of days, drive their child of school age and
any other children at the same time to or from, or part way to or from, the school in which
their children are registered.

The following people are also considered to be parents for the purpose of this extension:
a) any person employed by the parents of the children being driven, to perform household
duties which include the care of those children

b) the grandparents, foster parents, and stepparents of the children being driven

c) any person living in the household of the child

3. Provision 2 above does not apply when any driver of the same vehicle is enrolled in school
and uses that vehicle to drive to or from, or part way to or from, school. It also does not
apply when any driver of the same vehicle uses that vehicle to drive to or from, or part way
to or from, work.

4. A vehicle is not considered as being driven to or from, or part way to or from, school unless
the person using that vehicle is enrolled in:

a) a course that is part of a certificate, diploma, or degree program offered on a full-time
basis by a school, college, university, or any other educational establishment

b) a course for which credit may be allowed for the completion, on a part-time basis, of a
certificate, diploma, or degree program offered by a school, college, university, or any other
educational establishment, or

c) a course that is directly related to or beneficial for the advancement of a student's
current or intended career

[my5cents]

Very interesting LongHaul. Like you, I will be purchasing my first Autoplan coverage as a senior. I did know that unlike a lot of things, for example home owner's grant, ICBC applies the senior's discount only after a person turns 65, not "in the year they turn", like so many other institutions do. I intentionally purchased a 6 month policy this term, so that it will expire a few days after I turn 65 in October.

[LongHaul]

by my5cents » Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:06 pm

Very interesting LongHaul. Like you, I will be purchasing my first Autoplan coverage as a senior. I did know that unlike a lot of things, for example home owner's grant, ICBC applies the senior's discount only after a person turns 65, not "in the year they turn", like so many other institutions do. I intentionally purchased a 6 month policy this term, so that it will expire a few days after I turn 65 in October.

Interesting, didn't know one had to be past their 65th birthday if they wished to take the Senior's Discount.

Actually didn't even know there was a Senior's Discount. Was quite surprised when the agent said I qualified for the Senior's Discount. Was surprised enough to ask some thing like “ICBC gives seniors a discount????” to be sure I heard it right. The agent said “Yes they do”.

A better reply by the agent for insurance ignorant clients like myself would have been “Yes they do but it has restrictions. You will have to decide if the restrictions will work for you” or something like that.

Anyway we sorted it out and picked up some knowledge about the Senior's Discount.

[my5cents]

I'm going to read the fine print before I take the discount plunge.

[my5cents]

Interesting... I'm two month from my 65th birthday and got a letter from ICBC yesterday.

"We've noticed that your 65th birthday is coming up soon...... you may qualify for 25% off your Basic auto insurance, if your vehicle is used for pleasure only....."

That's a smart idea for ICBC to send this out. Every insurance company knows that their profits are high with senior drivers. They generally have fewer claims and generally don't have their vehicle in jeopardy as much (ie, parked outside a bar at midnight, etc) Although some would say parking in WalMart during a weekday with all the seniors parking in and around is just as bad.

So the down side is that is 25% of just the basic, not the optional, but the basic likely cost around half the full cost of the insurance package. Effectively a 12% or so discount.

What it didn't say, and I'd be interested to know. If I purchased all the rest of my car insurance privately, would ICBC still give me the 25% discount on the Basic ? I'll certainly find out. If I ran ICBC that would be the hook I'd use. "25% off of Basic, when you purchase own damage and comprehensive coverage with ICBC" We'll see.

[LongHaul]

“by my5cents » Today, 9:14 am

What it didn't say, and I'd be interested to know. If I purchased all the rest of my car insurance privately, would ICBC still give me the 25% discount on the Basic ? I'll certainly find out. If I ran ICBC that would be the hook I'd use. "25% off of Basic, when you purchase own damage and comprehensive coverage with ICBC" We'll see.”

My guess is one will be allowed the 25% discount on the Basic whether the rest of the insurance is purchased from ICBC or not. Think the private insurers would be screaming “unfair competition” and the news media would be on it if everything had to be purchased from ICBC to get the discount.

[my5cents]

My guess is one will be allowed the 25% discount on the Basic whether the rest of the insurance is purchased from ICBC or not. Think the private insurers would be screaming “unfair competition” and the news media would be on it if everything had to be purchased from ICBC to get the discount.

I think you're right. However, you know private have certain discounts if you are a member of BCAA, or you have your house insurance with the same company, etc etc.

Keeping seniors in your book of business is very wise for auto insurance companies. I know my vehicle may not move for 2 or 3 days at a crack, safely locked in my garage. Its' rarely out past dark, even in the winter, maybe once a month and "late" is 10 - 11:00 PM.

Giving seniors a discount on Basic doesn't "capture" any senior business. Because that's the mandatory portion anyway.

Sounds more political than good business.

[Hassel99]

I think you're right. However, you know private have certain discounts if you are a member of BCAA, or you have your house insurance with the same company, etc etc.

Keeping seniors in your book of business is very wise for auto insurance companies. I know my vehicle may not move for 2 or 3 days at a crack, safely locked in my garage. Its' rarely out past dark, even in the winter, maybe once a month and "late" is 10 - 11:00 PM.

Giving seniors a discount on Basic doesn't "capture" any senior business. Because that's the mandatory portion anyway.

Sounds more political than good business.

I can confirm you get the discount on the basic if you still buy the optional elsewhere.
I THINK there is something in the MVA that does not allowed ICBC to play with discounts on basic if you purchase the optional from them as well. it could be some sort of tied selling issue based on the basic monopoly.

If ICBC had the power to do "good business" the optional coverage would not be optional any more =p

[LongHaul]

This case shows how depending on the circumstances the not at fault driver in an accident who sues the other driver can still lose the case ending up with costly financial charges and other consequences.

This happened to a driver in Gibson who was stopped at a Stop Sign and rear-ended by a vehicle coming up from behind whose driver failed to stop. The lady who was rear-ended (smoked as she put it) suffered injuries and eventually sued the other driver for $145,000 apparently to cover medical expenses she was having difficultly getting ICBC to accept. This lady who called Head Office ICBC about the medical expenses stated “The guy I talked to said 'I'm not telling you this, but you better get yourself a lawyer””.

The end result was she sued the driver who had rear-ended her and her case eventually was heard in the Supreme Court of BC and the Court of Appeal.

The lady lost her case and claim in both courts. The driver who had rear-ended her was found not to be at fault.

After losing the case the lady was left owning ICBC $42,000 for their court costs. When she went to ICBC to change her address she found that if she did not pay the $42,000 by the time she had to renew her licence, ICBC would not renew her licence.

Doing a rough summary of the case the lawyers for ICBC were able to successfully defend the driver who rear-ended her by arguing the accident was caused due to a substance on the road. There was speculation it may have been brake fluid? It was not established if this substance made the road slippery. Even though the next two drivers who arrived at the accident scene didn't have any difficultly stopping the possibility this fluid may have caused the failure to stop in time was established with the court.

Based on my interpretation (which may be incorrect) of the court proceedings (link is below) the charge against the driver who rear-ended her claimed negligence as the reason for the collision. The judge stated the plaintiff is required to prove negligence and in this case was unable to conclusively do so. The judge accepted the explanation the defendant could not stop in time due to the oily substance on the road. Therefore the case was dismissed as being No-Fault.

Part of the wording of the judgement by the Court of Appeal Judge February 3,2010 follows:

“The plaintiff’s claim arose from a rear-end motor vehicle accident on School Road in Gibsons, B.C. on 24 June 2005. The plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on School Road at its intersection with Gower Point Road, for the stop sign facing her eastbound direction of travel.  The defendant was also eastbound on School Road, failed to stop her vehicle in time, and collided into the rear of the plaintiff’s pickup truck.

[2] The learned trial judge found that there was a prima facie case of negligence on the defendant’s part.  However, she held that the defendant had provided an explanation as to how the accident could have happened without negligence on her part.  That explanation was the presence of an oily substance on the road’s surface.  Having provided such an explanation, the judge held that the onus of proving negligence remained on the plaintiff, and that on the evidence provided the plaintiff had failed to discharge that onus.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I am of the opinion that the learned trial judge did not err in holding there was evidence of an explanation equally consistent with fault as with no-fault on the defendant’s part.  The inference of negligence was adequately explained. Additionally, the trial judge did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to discharge her onus. I would dismiss the appeal.”

Link to the case follows.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/10/00/2010BCCA0048.htm

This case is disturbing in that it implies it could be risky to sue for expenses not covered by ICBC if there is a possible “No Fault Defence” by the other driver. Again this is my interpretation of the case which may be incorrect. This case should be a strong precedent as it went to the Court of Appeal.

Based on my understanding of this case made up the following example to show what this case seems to imply as per my understanding.

Suppose a car coming towards you suddenly crosses the centre line striking your car. It is winter conditions and there is light snow on the highway. The car that hit you was driving appropriately for the road conditions, had good snow tires and seemed to be doing everything right until it crossed the centre line. You have extensive medical costs and find your ICBC Policy will only cover part of them. You sue the driver that hit you and find the other driver claims encountering a very slippery spot under the snow, possibly black ice. This slippery spot caused him to lose control. ICBC then defends the other driver with a “No Fault” defence due to possible black ice causing the accident. Using this case as a precedent it would seem all ICBC has to do is establish in court the possibility black ice could have been present and caused the accident. Once the black ice theory has been established think the chances of you winning the case would go to slim and you could end up in a similar situation as the lady in the case above.

Anyway something to consider if you are suing another driver and ICBC counters with a “No Fault” defence. An out of court settlement may not even be offered as per the statement from an ICBC official when discussing the case this lady lost.

As per an news article at canada.com - xxxxx of ICBC said in an email: "As our investigation into this claim determined -and which has since been supported by both the B.C. Supreme Court and affirmed by the B.C. Appeals Court -our customer (the named defendant) was not negligent in her actions. No attempt was made to settle with Ms. xxxxx counsel because the defendant was not negligent and therefore not responsible.

See link

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=dff3e485-ff46-4087-9817-25095c6dd82a&sponsor

After the lady lost her case a lawyer volunteered to provide assistance at no charge and started discussions with ICBC. Unfortunately the link for this follow-on article does not work anymore. From what I recall he was able to get ICBC to allow renewal of her licence. Possibly the lady's situation with her licence renewal making the news also helped. He was planning to attempt to negotiate a payment schedule for the $42,000 owning ICBC.

Could not find any further information on what happened after that.

Link to another article about this case follows:
http://www.coastreporter.net/gibsons-woman-contemplates-suing-icbc-1.1179438

[LoneWolf_53]

ICBC are A holes of the highest order!

Their policies are craftily worded to give them as many escape opportunities as possible.

[wanderingman]

Remember the senior discount of 25% is only on the basic premium.Its not on the whole policy but still a worthwhile saving

[wanderingman]

This happened to a driver in Gibson who was stopped at a Stop Sign and rear-ended by a vehicle coming up from behind whose driver failed to stop. The lady who was rear-ended (smoked as she put it) suffered injuries and eventually sued the other driver for $145,000 apparently to cover medical expenses she was having difficultly getting ICBC to accept. This lady who called Head Office ICBC about the medical expenses stated “The guy I talked to said 'I'm not telling you this, but you better get yourself a lawyer””.

I personally smell a pig at the trough here. I think this lady was compensated for her Injurys(most likely BS injurys) and decided to go for the throat and lost

I personaly know a women in Vernon whom tried a similar thing last year,She tried to sue for 500K and got 68K
The lawyer fees were more than she received.I was happy because I knew she was fibbing big time and the judge was able to see through the smoke