Incorrect principal operator & denial of insurance

[LongHaul]

There is a rather lengthy but interesting article at http://icbcandtrucking.wordpress.com/ about the difficulties small trucking firms who are on the the Principal Operator Plan have with ICBC.

It could be useful to anyone who is in a claim dispute with ICBC about an incorrect Principal Operator or who insures a vehicle that has multiple drivers.

The last section contradicts a commonly held belief that ICBC can withhold insurance renewal until any amounts owing are paid. ICBC likes to act like this is the case. However there are some types of costs for which ICBC cannot withhold insurance renewal unless they win a court action to enforce their assignment.

Reinforces my opinion ICBC needs competition to reduce their arrogance and improve their treatment of customers.

Thought I would pass this information on.

[my5cents]

There is a rather lengthy but interesting article at http://icbcandtrucking.wordpress.com/ about the difficulties small trucking firms who are on the the Principal Operator Plan have with ICBC.

It could be useful to anyone who is in a claim dispute with ICBC about an incorrect Principal Operator or who insures a vehicle that has multiple drivers.

The last section contradicts a commonly held belief that ICBC can withhold insurance renewal until any amounts owing are paid. ICBC likes to act like this is the case. However there are some types of costs for which ICBC cannot withhold insurance renewal unless they win a court action to enforce their assignment.

Reinforces my opinion ICBC needs competition to reduce their arrogance and improve their treatment of customers.

Thought I would pass this information on.

The trucking company had the vehicle involved in the accident insured with a Principle Operator who did not work for the company. The insurance for the subject vehicle had been renewed since that employee had left the company.

The article say that the trucking company owner renewed the policy over the phone, gee every time I've renewed my insurance, (always in person and I couldn't send someone else in to do it for me) I've had several places on the policy to initial, (including verifying the PO) and at least one place to sign. Strange nothing had to be signed by the owner of the vehicle ????

I don't think ICBC is well run, and I don't think for a second that surplus money should be given to the government, but I think if you compare fairly, the coverage supplied and the cost, private insurance to ICBC you'd find you'd rather have ICBC.

Don't forget the only part of the ICBC coverage that isn't subject to competition is the very basic Public Liability coverage, (the bare bones to put plates on your vehicle) all the rest, additional liability coverage, fire, theft, collision etc, is completely open to any and all competition.

[LongHaul]

The statement in the article probably means the preparation of the papers for renewal and any changes were discussed over the phone. The paperwork for a long haul company with multiple vehicles crossing provinces could be considerable. Suspect it requires part of a tree be sacrificed. Once the paperwork is ready the owner would then come in and start signing.

Looked at my policy and the PO section was not initialed. Hope ICBC will not use something like this to deny coverage. After some of the Global and CBC reports on strange ICBC decisions in the past couple of months am not really confident ICBC has one's back in the event of an accident.

ICBC claims they are trying to improve customer service and fairness but as the URL below some of their adjusters and managers may not have gotten the memo. The power ICBC has to make these questionable decisions and force one into a prolonged costly legal battle to get them overturned is disturbing.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/58 ... ung-driver

Know of a similar situation involving a restored vehicle the owner encountered a couple of years ago. In this case the ICBC adjuster and manager denied insurance coverage as they decided the vehicle was in the wrong rate class. To make a long story short the owner had to take legal action although his motive was more the principle of not letting ICBC get away with this than the repair costs. It took a long time but ICBC caved in and restored his insurance before it went into the court room.

In my opinion full competition with private insurance could be beneficial to ICBC and the consumer.
If ICBC is so much better than Private Insurance they should be able with improvements in customer service and rates hang onto their good customers. If some of their poor customers migrate to the competition that could even be beneficial to ICBC. The provincial government would still have to ensure ICBC did not adopt the guilty until proven innocent rating policies some Private Insurance companies have with certain age groups.

BC Tel (now Telus) had a monopoly for a long time. Once competition was allowed the service for consumers improved considerably and the company has done very well.

[my5cents]

Know of a similar situation involving a restored vehicle the owner encountered a couple of years ago. In this case the ICBC adjuster and manager denied insurance coverage as they decided the vehicle was in the wrong rate class. To make a long story short the owner had to take legal action although his motive was more the principle of not letting ICBC get away with this than the repair costs. It took a long time but ICBC caved in and restored his insurance before it went into the court room.

In my opinion full competition with private insurance could be beneficial to ICBC and the consumer.
If ICBC is so much better than Private Insurance they should be able with improvements in customer service and rates hang onto their good customers. If some of their poor customers migrate to the competition that could even be beneficial to ICBC. The provincial government would still have to ensure ICBC did not adopt the guilty until proven innocent rating policies some Private Insurance companies have with certain age groups.

BC Tel (now Telus) had a monopoly for a long time. Once competition was allowed the service for consumers improved considerably and the company has done very well.

From the desription of this claim "his motive was more the principle of not letting ICBC get away with this than the repair costs"... So this was part of his own vehicle damage coverage, which is not part of ICBC's monopoly.

I don't see the problem, buy your own damage coverage from private.

Most of the ICBC "horror stories" have two sides. I'm not saying some aren't true, but a huge number have some details left out.

[toughnut]

Quote"
Most of the ICBC "horror stories" have two sides. I'm not saying some aren't true, but a huge number have some details left out.

Very true But from my many dealings and policys etc with ICBC for the last 35+ years is this.Its a huge undercontrolled Bureaucracy .Its getting better but most agents that are selling policys DO NOT explain things properly to customers and there in lies a huge problem.ICBC works in a funny way and at best is really hard to find out who the boss is at any given time of any given department.Too many of the policys are too ambiguous such as this one has turned out to be.IF and only IF one can beleive this article ver batem then I feel the insurance agent is also a loose cannon in this dispute.It also looks like as usual the police droped th ball amongst others.One thing I have found in the past is ICBC employees being able to make decisions of claims without recourse and that plain wrong;
Here,s a ICBC story just as side point to show you how bad ICBC people can be and how they abuse authority that they really dont have;
A N driver runs his truck through my front yard.There is major damage to my tress,fences etc etc,ICBC Ajuster comes to house and surveys the damage,Pictures,write a report etc.Also Has the police report(police are another joke in this drama)
I wait 2 weeks no answers,I phone and thee too busy and have no got any estimates yet.I say(short story of long) How about I get a estimate and if it seem reasonable would they accept that.Yes and off I went to get a estimate of $5K.Now its end of October so I say well Have to do it in the spring and they approve the whole thing.Spring to them does not matter,Its an approved active claim.EOS.Well I get all the work done and the contracter wants me to pay him because hes delt with ICBC
and they take too long so I pay him and take the paid bill to ICBC for payment.Hold on now they say(new ajuster involved)
BFB says she looked at the photos and theres no way it should cost 5K to repair the damage.Long short story is I got paid but it was not pretty.The moral of my story is sometimes its not ICBC per say but the poorly trained Morons that they hire

[John500]

My experience is that ICBC people that you call in Vancouver for information give the wrong information. Even when they check with their supervisor. They have no clue.
ICBC needs competition for the basics as well. That will smarten them up.

[Loed]

I tend to find a lot of the "two-sides" idea is ICBC trying to pay out the least amount of money in the least amount of processing time.

Look at the story linked in Longhaul's second post. It's disgusting that that took 3 years to clear up when it was obviously the trucks fault in the first place(vouched for by many), but they take the word of a retired police officer over everyone else's voice(yes because officers are apparently gods..... different thread), and they stereo-type the poor kid to hell and high-water.

Every case should be seen individually. It's not in their process though, they go through a checklist and be damned if you fit into one of those categories.

[toughnut]

I tend to find a lot of the "two-sides" idea is ICBC trying to pay out the least amount of money in the least amount of processing time.

Look at the story linked in Longhaul's second post. It's disgusting that that took 3 years to clear up when it was obviously the trucks fault in the first place(vouched for by many), but they take the word of a retired police officer over everyone else's voice(yes because officers are apparently gods..... different thread), and they stereo-type the poor kid to hell and high-water.

Every case should be seen individually. It's not in their process though, they go through a checklist and be damned if you fit into one of those categories.

Maybe I read the whole thing wrong? or? The way the story was being told in my view was not that the truck driver and the owner were so much disputing who was wrong and who was right BUT the fact that the owner was or was not in Violation of his exspensive insurance policy(wrong PO claimed on policy) He was denied insurance protection because he supposable named the wrong PO on the perticular truck insurance policy.NOTHING to do with fault

[Loed]

I tend to find a lot of the "two-sides" idea is ICBC trying to pay out the least amount of money in the least amount of processing time.

Look at the story linked in Longhaul's second post. It's disgusting that that took 3 years to clear up when it was obviously the trucks fault in the first place(vouched for by many), but they take the word of a retired police officer over everyone else's voice(yes because officers are apparently gods..... different thread), and they stereo-type the poor kid to hell and high-water.

Every case should be seen individually. It's not in their process though, they go through a checklist and be damned if you fit into one of those categories.

Maybe I read the whole thing wrong? or? The way the story was being told in my view was not that the truck driver and the owner were so much disputing who was wrong and who was right BUT the fact that the owner was or was not in Violation of his exspensive insurance policy(wrong PD claimed on policy) He was denied insurance protection because he supposable named the wrong PD on the perticular truck insurance policy.NOTHING to do with fault

No you read that right, I was talking about the 2nd post that Longhaul made, involving a different incident entirely.

[my5cents]

Most of the ICBC "horror stories" have two sides. I'm not saying some aren't true, but a huge number have some details left out.

Very true But from my many dealings and policys etc with ICBC for the last 35+ years is this.Its a huge undercontrolled Bureaucracy .Its getting better but most agents that are selling policys DO NOT explain things properly to customers and there in lies a huge problem.ICBC works in a funny way and at best is really hard to find out who the boss is at any given time of any given department.Too many of the policys are too ambiguous such as this one has turned out to be.IF and only IF one can beleive this article ver batem then I feel the insurance agent is also a loose cannon in this dispute.It also looks like as usual the police droped th ball amongst others.One thing I have found in the past is ICBC employees being able to make decisions of claims without recourse and that plain wrong;
Here,s a ICBC story just as side point to show you how bad ICBC people can be and how they abuse authority that they really dont have;
A N driver runs his truck through my front yard.There is major damage to my tress,fences etc etc,ICBC Ajuster comes to house and surveys the damage,Pictures,write a report etc.Also Has the police report(police are another joke in this drama)
I wait 2 weeks no answers,I phone and thee too busy and have no got any estimates yet.I say(short story of long) How about I get a estimate and if it seem reasonable would they accept that.Yes and off I went to get a estimate of $5K.Now its end of October so I say well Have to do it in the spring and they approve the whole thing.Spring to them does not matter,Its an approved active claim.EOS.Well I get all the work done and the contracter wants me to pay him because hes delt with ICBC
and they take too long so I pay him and take the paid bill to ICBC for payment.Hold on now they say(new ajuster involved)
BFB says she looked at the photos and theres no way it should cost 5K to repair the damage.Long short story is I got paid but it was not pretty.The moral of my story is sometimes its not ICBC per say but the poorly trained Morons that they hire

With respect to the agents giving incorrect information, I completely agree. I seen a lot of that. One time I was with my wife when she was renewing her coverage at BCAA in Penticton. The agent told my wife that it would be a good idea to get uninsured motorist coverage in case she was hit by a drunk or something because they wouldn't have insurance because they would be in breach. This is completely wrong. ICBC would cover the victim then chase the drunk for what they paid out.

I told the girl that that was not why someone would purchase uninsured motorist coverage and, that if a drunk was in breach ICBC would not walk away from the innocent party, they pay that party and chase the drunk. She got very uppity and got very rude. I complained to the ICBC Autoplan rep for the area and ultimately received an apology from the manager of the BCAA office and was assure by ICBC that they would provide some re-training.

The Autoplan agent system is a very touchy issue. Very political. Each agent is not employed by ICBC they work for the particular insurance agency BCAA, McBains, etc. The agencies have quite the political clout and support keeping ICBC to the Provincial Government.

As for this claim of the straight through truck vs the turning car, I'd have to read all the statements, but don't forget each vehicle is "one statement", if you have three passengers, and you and your passengers say you went through a green light and the other vehicle had just a driver, who said you had a red, but there was an independent witness who said you went through a red light, the liability would be against you. The two vehicles a push and the independent witness (if they were reliable and seem credible) would tilt the scale.

As for a judge being correct, that isn't always the case either.

The best one I ever heard was a vehicle fleeing the RCMP in a isolated area, the vehicle stopped and then as the cop began walking up to the vehicle it took off. It did this a few times. Finally stopping on a logging road in the middle of nowhere. The cop has his gun out and was walking up to the vehicle when it took off again, the cop ran after the vehicle for a short distance and as he did he slipped and fell. As he went down he accidentally discharge his firearm and shot a passenger in the back seat of the vehicle. The passenger sued ICBC for the injury saying he was in a vehicle and the incident was caused in the use and operation of a vehicle. ICBC of course denied the claim (I think we would all agree that that should have nothing to do with an ICBC claim). A judge ruled that ICBC had to pay.

Since then there are new exclusions regarding things like getting shot while in a vehicle.

Gee, maybe if you get someone pregnant after an "interlude" in the back seat of a car, ICBC will pay the support ?????

As for the police, who they say is at fault in the accident and who they give a ticket to, doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter one iota. ICBC has a different set of civil rules that are (or should be) based on what they expect a civil court would assess liability.

What sorta sums it all up is a poster I saw in a claims manger's office. It read :

"Arguing with an adjuster is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while, you realized the pig is enjoying it"

[toughnut]

the non isnsured/underinsured policy is against your Drivers licence not your insurance policy and is especially benificial for you if your out of province or out of country and also to some degree also in BC.ICBC has only certain obligations in BC to pay your claim based on the other party is drunk or underinsured.This $25.00 DL policy is (no pun intended) cheap insurance and i highly recommend it. I say to you my5cents is your wrong, plain and simple and gave your lady friend/wife very bad advice

[my5cents]

the non isnsured/underinsured policy is against your Drivers licence not your insurance policy and is especially benificial for you if your out of province or out of country and also to some degree also in BC.ICBC has only certain obligations in BC to pay your claim based on the other party is drunk or underinsured.This $25.00 DL policy is (no pun intended) cheap insurance and i highly recommend it. I say to you my5cents is your wrong, plain and simple and gave your lady friend/wife very bad advice

toughnut : I'd be very interested in learning what I was wrong about ?

I stated to the Autoplan agent that Underinsured Motorist Protection (called UMP in the business) was not necessary for coverage in the event that someone is hit by an impaired driver.

You say that that is wrong ?

I didn't comment on the value of UMP coverage, good bad or indifferent, I said that it was not for the purpose the agent said it was.

As for the coverage being cheap. Yes relatively, I guess. What it does is, it ads $1 Million coverage to your already basic $1 Million Underinsured coverage.

Do you know how few auto insurance claims go over $1 Million ? In this case you also have to have been involved with a vehicle that has a $1 Million or less of coverage and your claim is over that. Thus, since the coverage in virtually never needed, of course it's cheap. But again that wasn't my point.

My only point was that this coverage does not protect someone when they are hit by an impaired driver, except, I guess if that impaired driver had less than a Million in coverage and your claim was over that.

The coverage is a rider, that is not linked to a vehicle and can be purchased by any BC resident even if they don't have a vehicle or a DL.

I don't know why it is: "especially benificial for you if your out of province or out of country and also to some degree also in BC" You still have the basic $1 Million Underinsured coverage the additional policy bumps that up to $2 Million.

Your statement : "ICBC has only certain obligations in BC to pay your claim based on the other party is drunk or underinsured." ????? What are you talking about ??? ICBC has the "obligation" to pay up to $1 Million under your basic automatic Underinsured Motorist Protection, period. As for the other driver being drunk (which started this whole thing), it doesn't matter a hill of beans as far you the victim is concerned, the victim will receive the full compensation afforded under the drunk's policy and if the drunk doesn't have enough coverage the basic Underinsured Motorist Protection of $1 Million kicks in and if you've purchased the Excess Underinsured Motorist Protection if that first $1 Million is used up that would ad another Million.

So if someone feels that they need 2$ Million of coverage instead of their already available basic $1 Million UMP, buy it. But realize that it's only value is full of "ifs"

- If you are in an accident and you are not at fault
and
- If the amount of the claim is in excess of $1 Million
and
- If the other driver has less than 1$ Million in coverage

I would really like to hear what I was wrong about. I guess the Autoplan regional rep, who I contacted, and who contacted BCAA, and the manager of BCAA who apologized to me for the error, were all wrong too ?????

[toughnut]

I stand by what I said .Also to note You can not go and buy the 25$ premium for the additional insurnace unless You have a current insurance policy with ICBC and yes you have to have a DL to do that.I also (if U read) was saying it was more of an effective policy if per say you were out of province or out of country and some people have no insurance.(EG) your driving in arizona with your new car,wife and 3 kids.A mexican Tbones you.He has NO insurance.Your family are all injured and you have to stay in the hospital in the US for many days several of you.U will wish u bought the extra 25.00 policy for sure
Yes your right 1 million is a lot of insurance but for $25.00 one million more is pretty cheap.I agree the insurance agent was wrong when they used a drunk driver in BC as as an example need for the extra insurance as its not true.

[000abc000]

You only need to have a valid BC drivers licence to purchase the Excess Underinsured Policy, you do not have to have an active autoplan policy, as it is attached to your drivers licence not your licence plate.

[toughnut]

You only need to have a valid BC drivers licence to purchase the Excess Underinsured Policy, you do not have to have an active autoplan policy, as it is attached to your drivers licence not your licence plate.

really?.I did not know that.
Heres what I read and is the reason I assumed you had to have a valid policy ;

Up to $2 million coverage available
For just $25 a year, you can purchase Excess Underinsured Motorist Protection. This increases your basic UMP coverage, up to a total limit of $2 million