Friday, July 25th23.7°C
22087
22595

Incorrect principal operator and denial of insurance by ICBC

B.C. topics.

Moderators: oneh2obabe, Jo, ferri, Triple 6

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby LongHaul » Oct 22nd, 2011, 1:41 pm

Saw this one recently on Global News. A semi pulling a trailer was rear ended on the Coquihalla Highway. The truck driver was accessed 75% at fault even though the other driver told ICBC he was totally at fault. Kudos to this driver for being so honest.

This is a scary decision for drivers of large rigs. Yes sometimes they are driving slowly but that is for safety. Most professional drivers (unfortunately there are some exceptions) will drive at a safe speed for road conditions and traffic.

They do not have control of what people behind them do. The ICBC adjusters who came up with this bizarre assignment of fault should be put behind the wheel of a big rig and re-enact the situation that led up to this accident. This decision does benefit ICBC in one way. Any increase in insurance premiums will be much greater for the truck driver. If ICBC wants to get paid back as soon as possible for the cost of the accident this assignment of fault is the way to go.

The truck driver is lucky he got rear ended by such an honest individual. Otherwise any appeal to ICBC will be probably hopeless without going to court. If the truck driver ends up with an accident mark on his record it could be a major factor on whether he gets hired or not for a job. It will be even more of a factor if the potential employer has his trucks insured under ICBC's Principal Operator plan rather than the Fleet Plan. URL to the Global News story follows. There is a few seconds of advertising before the video starts.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/another+puzzling+icbc+assessment/video.html?v=2127465020#stories/video
LongHaul
Fledgling
 
Posts: 111
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2011, 9:41 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby Sn0man » Oct 22nd, 2011, 2:08 pm


Wow, well that just goes to prove that ICBC is run by a bunch of asshats.
Sunshine tax rebate recipient
User avatar
Sn0man
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 881
Likes: 42 posts
Liked in: 30 posts
Joined: May 6th, 2010, 1:05 pm
Location: Alberta

Another case showing how difficult it can be dealing with IC

Postby LongHaul » Jan 12th, 2012, 10:43 am

Motor Vehicles who became part of ICBC several years ago appear to have adopted the ICBC culture when dealing with their clients.
Interesting story on how this 82 year old lady was charged with failing to blow because she didn't have the lung strength to blown into the roadside screening device. The link is below.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/sober+bc+senior+fined+for+drunk+driving/6442557083/story.html

Smart lady to have the presence of mind to go to the local hospital to get a blood test for alcohol right after she was charged. The test showed there wasn't any alcohol in her system.

An RCMP corporal after seeing the hospital's analysis recommended the charge be dropped and her impounded vehicle be returned.
The lady did get her car and licence back but Motor Vehicles refused to refund the money paid out in fines. An appeal was also turned down. Perhaps they thought the lady would give up when she realized she would have to take them to court to get a refund.

The follow up news since the lady went public is the BC Government has ordered Motor Vehicles to take another look at her case. Suspect the lady will be receiving her refund shortly.
LongHaul
Fledgling
 
Posts: 111
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2011, 9:41 pm

Re: Another case showing how difficult it can be dealing wit

Postby my5cents » Jan 12th, 2012, 2:50 pm

LongHaul wrote:Motor Vehicles who became part of ICBC several years ago appear to have adopted the ICBC culture when dealing with their clients.
Interesting story on how this 82 year old lady was charged with failing to blow because she didn't have the lung strength to blown into the roadside screening device. The link is below.

http://www.globaltvbc.com/sober+bc+senior+fined+for+drunk+driving/6442557083/story.html

Smart lady to have the presence of mind to go to the local hospital to get a blood test for alcohol right after she was charged. The test showed there wasn't any alcohol in her system.

An RCMP corporal after seeing the hospital's analysis recommended the charge be dropped and her impounded vehicle be returned.
The lady did get her car and licence back but Motor Vehicles refused to refund the money paid out in fines. An appeal was also turned down. Perhaps they thought the lady would give up when she realized she would have to take them to court to get a refund.

The follow up news since the lady went public is the BC Government has ordered Motor Vehicles to take another look at her case. Suspect the lady will be receiving her refund shortly.


What the heck has this got to do with "Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by ICBC" ?????

For starters, ICBC took over the "Motor Vehicle Branch" (MVB), or "Department of Motor Vehicles" (as it is sometimes called). ICBC took over the vehicle registration side of the MVB when ICBC was created in and around 1973 and took over the driver's licensing part of the MVB about 20 years ago.

The only part of driver's license administration not taken over by ICBC was the "Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles" (OSMV) and guess who administers the IRP ? and reviews prohibitions ??? the OSMV,,, nothing to do with ICBC.

The subject of this woman and her prohibition is discussed at : viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37093&start=30#p1162941
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1732
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby LongHaul » Jan 13th, 2012, 11:27 am

Interesting discussion at http://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37093&start=30#p1162941 on this case.

Was looking for it but didn't spot that it was further down as part of the discussion of
“Impaired Driving Convictions Spark BC Lawsuits”.

The Office of Superintendent of Motor Vehicles may be independent on paper but in reality they work closely with ICBC.

The post was my opinion it seems that contesting a ruling appears to be as difficult with Motor Vehicles as it is with ICBC.

The following on the relationship between Motor Vehicles and ICBC is extracted from the ICBC Service Plan for 2011-2013. The plan is found at http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2011/crown_toc.htm

Look for the ICBC plan under Crown Corporations. After reading it one should feel warm and fuzzy about ICBC. Bring on the rate increase... :-(

Non-Insurance Services
In addition to the Basic insurance and Optional insurance
lines of business, we provide driver licensing services,
vehicle licensing and registration services, and fines
collection on behalf of the provincial government. We refer
to the provision of these services as our non-insurance line
of business. These non-insurance services are outlined in the
Service Agreement between ICBC and the Province, and
their costs are funded through Basic insurance premiums.

ICBC delivers its services in partnership with:

• Independent insurance brokers who provide auto
insurance products and services to the public and
are guided by the agreement with ICBC’s broker
partners;

• A broad base of suppliers in the automotive industry,
guided by performance-based agreements, and
liaison groups such as the Automotive Retailers
Association (ARA);

• The medical community to assist injured customers
in getting well;

• Government agents and appointed agents that
provide driver and vehicle licensing services in a
number of communities where there are no ICBC
offices;

• The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles
and Police Services within the Ministry of Public Safety
and Solicitor General, with whom we work together
in a number of areas, including driver licensing and
road safety;

----etc---etc
LongHaul
Fledgling
 
Posts: 111
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2011, 9:41 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby my5cents » Jan 13th, 2012, 1:10 pm

Thanks for the document LongHaul, just heading out, will examine it later.

Some interesting comments on ICBC also at viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37881

Regards
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1732
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby LongHaul » Jan 14th, 2012, 6:13 pm

Thanks for the tip my5cents. Will have to remember on my next renewal to ask my ICBC Agent about non ICBC optional insurance coverage. From the discussion at viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37881 and from what some people have said one can get more coverage for the same or less cost. Plus one person who had to use it and found the service was excellent.

Thinking about it, all the times I have renewed with my ICBC agent not once has the agent suggested looking at a non ICBC supplier for the optional insurance.
LongHaul
Fledgling
 
Posts: 111
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2011, 9:41 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby my5cents » Jan 15th, 2012, 12:35 pm

ICBC has attempted to keep a very close relationship with it's "Autoplan Agents", who are just private insurance agencies that have contracted with ICBC to sell ICBC insurance and register vehicles (some sell other auto insurance as well). These agents have a very strong lobby with the government and if they like ICBC being around, ICBC has a greater chance or staying around.

The province loves the "relationship" it has with ICBC. (If you can call a crown corporation's dealings with it's master a relationship).

You stated in your quote of the ICBC document you found : "These non-insurance services are outlined in the
Service Agreement between ICBC and the Province, and their costs are funded through Basic insurance premiums"


What you probably didn't realize, however I guess it actually says it... every cent ICBC collects in the way of fines (they can hold you ransom for insurance and driver's license renewals til you pay) is given to the government, not a penny goes to pay for the collections efforts, that's all paid for by ICBC.

Also when you renew you driver's license, or take a road test etc the fees are all turned over to the government. When you renew you license to the tune of $75, guess how much of the $75 goes to the government ? That's right $75. Add to all that the hundreds and hundreds of millions that the government has pillaged from ICBC (I'll bet over a $Billion in the last 5 years). Even invested at 5% that Billion would represent $50,000,000 a year in interest, that would sure go a long way to pay the increase in the premiums.

To keep in good with it's agents they are also given perks. Such as small towns that do have Government Agent's offices (now called "Service BC") but ICBC still pays a private insurance agency to issue driver's licenses. Oliver and Creston are two that come to mind.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1732
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby LongHaul » Jan 16th, 2012, 12:51 pm

Interesting. The transfer of revenue from ICBC to the Provincial Government's General Revenue account could become like the Government having a drug addition. The Provincial Government may start putting pressure on ICBC to increase the funds available for transfer if they haven't already.

Can't see the government ever moving to open across the board competition including Basic Insurance with ICBC as long as this revenue flow to them is in place.
LongHaul
Fledgling
 
Posts: 111
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2011, 9:41 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby my5cents » Jan 16th, 2012, 2:59 pm

LongHaul wrote:Interesting. The transfer of revenue from ICBC to the Provincial Government's General Revenue account could become like the Government having a drug addition. The Provincial Government may start putting pressure on ICBC to increase the funds available for transfer if they haven't already.

Can't see the government ever moving to open across the board competition including Basic Insurance with ICBC as long as this revenue flow to them is in place.


As I understand it, the money they give to government is from the optional coverage only. So that's the portion that they are in competition with private for.

I posted on the "ICBC" forum that the CDI quote I got was $200 cheaper, if checked further and I left out their charge for the added liability to $2 Million. So actually the same coverage was a saving of $135.24 over ICBC.

I don't really trust any insurance company, everything is usually just fine til you have a claim. As a young fellow I had private and it was bad, very bad. As a result I'm going to have to do some thinking, but I will probably stay with ICBC even though it appears I could save about $11 a month with CDI.

I guess you could say I "distrust" ICBC less
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1732
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby alisvolatpropriis » Jan 18th, 2012, 4:21 pm

my5cents wrote:
toughnut wrote:
my5cents wrote: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"


The policy is called an excess underinsured motorist protection policy. The policy gives you (and all occupants of your vehicle at that time, and any dependent children in your household) an extra 1,000,000 in excess of $1,000,000 that you automatically are entitled to by holding a BC drivers license. The purpose of this policy is to cover those who are severly injured by someone who is not carrying sufficent insurance coverage (ie. $200,000/$300,000/$500,000 third party liability) or found in a situation where the person who caused the accident could be found in breach of their insurance coverages (ie. drinking and driving, claiming fraudulent information on their insurance policy..ect.)

So if you were for instance hit by a an underinsured driver and your claim resulted in anything less then $1,000,000 ICBC would pay up and seek subrogation of the person responsible. If you were to be a victim in a similar situation and you were entitled to more then the $1,000,000 and you were not carrying the excess underinsured motorist protection policy ICBC would pay up to the $1,000,000 and you would be responsible thereafter seeking your own subrogation on the person responsible in court at your own cost. NOW, if you were carrying the excess underinsured motorist protection policy ICBC would pay up to $2,000,000.

This policy is extremly benefical if you are travelling outside of BC or Canada, as some legal liability requirements are quite low in different places. I have heard that in some states the legal requirement can be as low as $5,000 (which would cover next to nothing in the terms of injuries in the USA) Also, this policy covers you while driving your own vehicle, someone else's, walking down the street, riding a bicycle. It attatched to your drivers license, not your motor vehicle policy.

I suggest you know the facts and in's and out's of a policy before telling off an autoplan agent based off of your assumptions. This policy is very benefical!
User avatar
alisvolatpropriis
Fledgling
 
Posts: 143
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010, 6:42 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby alisvolatpropriis » Jan 18th, 2012, 5:09 pm

LongHaul wrote:Thanks for the tip my5cents. Will have to remember on my next renewal to ask my ICBC Agent about non ICBC optional insurance coverage. From the discussion at viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37881 and from what some people have said one can get more coverage for the same or less cost. Plus one person who had to use it and found the service was excellent.

Thinking about it, all the times I have renewed with my ICBC agent not once has the agent suggested looking at a non ICBC supplier for the optional insurance.


We (agents) generally don't always make suggestions to clients about private insurance as there is generally a handful of people that would financially benefit from it. Private insurance companys have a strict criteria of what they are looking for.
User avatar
alisvolatpropriis
Fledgling
 
Posts: 143
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010, 6:42 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby my5cents » Jan 18th, 2012, 6:16 pm

alisvolatpropriis wrote:The policy is called an excess underinsured motorist protection policy. The policy gives you (and all occupants of your vehicle at that time, and any dependent children in your household) an extra 1,000,000 in excess of $1,000,000 that you automatically are entitled to by holding a BC drivers license. The purpose of this policy is to cover those who are severly injured by someone who is not carrying sufficent insurance coverage (ie. $200,000/$300,000/$500,000 third party liability) or found in a situation where the person who caused the accident could be found in breach of their insurance coverages (ie. drinking and driving, claiming fraudulent information on their insurance policy..ect.)

So if you were for instance hit by a an underinsured driver and your claim resulted in anything less then $1,000,000 ICBC would pay up and seek subrogation of the person responsible. If you were to be a victim in a similar situation and you were entitled to more then the $1,000,000 and you were not carrying the excess underinsured motorist protection policy ICBC would pay up to the $1,000,000 and you would be responsible thereafter seeking your own subrogation on the person responsible in court at your own cost. NOW, if you were carrying the excess underinsured motorist protection policy ICBC would pay up to $2,000,000.

This policy is extremly benefical if you are travelling outside of BC or Canada, as some legal liability requirements are quite low in different places. I have heard that in some states the legal requirement can be as low as $5,000 (which would cover next to nothing in the terms of injuries in the USA) Also, this policy covers you while driving your own vehicle, someone else's, walking down the street, riding a bicycle. It attatched to your drivers license, not your motor vehicle policy.

I suggest you know the facts and in's and out's of a policy before telling off an autoplan agent based off of your assumptions. This policy is very benefical!


Actually I strongly suggest that you learn the how insurance works :

The purpose of this policy is to cover those who are severly injured by someone who is not carrying sufficent insurance coverage (ie. $200,000/$300,000/$500,000 third party liability) or found in a situation where the person who caused the accident could be found in breach of their insurance coverages (ie. drinking and driving, claiming fraudulent information on their insurance policy..ect.)

The underlined portion above is completely wrong :
If a normally insured driver, is held in breach of his/her coverage, ICBC will pay the third party and seek recovery from the driver in breach. What you said was exactly what the Autoplan agent told my wife and I and she was dead wrong.

If you were to be a victim in a similar situation and you were entitled to more then the $1,000,000 and you were not carrying the excess underinsured motorist protection policy ICBC would pay up to the $1,000,000 and you would be responsible thereafter seeking your own subrogation on the person responsible in court at your own cost.

Again the underlined portion is wrong:
Do you even know who you sue in a law suit against a negligent driver ?? The victim sues the driver. ICBC still has a duty to represent the insured driver even if the suit may exceed the limitations of the insured's coverage. If there is a problem with coverage, for example there is a likelihood of the loss exceeding the policy limits or if the insured is in breach, ICBC will put the insured on notice and likely suggest the driver get independent counsel.

If the victim looses, no matter if the insured was underinsured or not, the victim's legal costs are born by the victim. If the victim wins, the legal fees are part of the settlement. Any outstanding amount, over and above the policy limits would then be sought from the negligent driver, by attaching assets or whatever. In most cases the victim's lawyer works on the case on a contingency bases and gets paid a percentage of whatever monies are realized in the suit.

Seeking the balance of the court award from the negligent underinsured driver is not "subrogation".

You make it sound as though the victim is covered for court costs by ICBC to sue the negligent driver up to the driver's limits. No, no, no.

I suggest you know the facts and in's and out's of a policy before telling off an autoplan agent based off of your assumptions.

Oh, no. I didn't tell off the Autoplan agent. And the error I pointed out was not an "assumption", it was based on me knowing the Insurance Vehicle Act and Regulations. I spoke directly with the ICBC Regional Autoplan Supervisor, she understood my complaint (as you obviously don't) and she contacted the Autoplan Agent's, manager, who in turn called me and apologized for the error by her agent.

Now, if I was wrong, funny the that the ICBC Regional Autoplan Supervisor and the Autoplan office manager agreed with me and made sure the agent understood the difference between a breach and an uninsured and underinsured situation.

Yes excess un/underinsured coverage is a good idea and is cheap. That is because the likelihood of being involved in a loss for which the settlement in excess of a million is very low.

As for the USA, you are correct their limits are less. Generally because policies don't have just one limit of, for example $200.000, our minimum. That amount is available for one loss, to one or more people.

In the USA, they may have a policy with a $200,000 limit, but within the policy, there are built in limits of less, for example, $25,000 per person per incident, so the full policy limit isn't available to one injured person.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1732
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby LongHaul » Jan 18th, 2012, 10:30 pm

alisvolatpropriis wrote:
LongHaul wrote:Thanks for the tip my5cents. Will have to remember on my next renewal to ask my ICBC Agent about non ICBC optional insurance coverage. From the discussion at viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37881 and from what some people have said one can get more coverage for the same or less cost. Plus one person who had to use it and found the service was excellent.

Thinking about it, all the times I have renewed with my ICBC agent not once has the agent suggested looking at a non ICBC supplier for the optional insurance.


We (agents) generally don't always make suggestions to clients about private insurance as there is generally a handful of people that would financially benefit from it. Private insurance companys have a strict criteria of what they are looking for.


The people I know of who have switched to private insurance for the optional coverage are what one could call "Joe Average Drivers". Know at least two of them have an accident free record. They still had to ask for information on what the private insurers could offer. Then the information was produced. Based on cost and what was offered by the private insurer they switched their optional to private. They didn't have any trouble meeting the "strict criteria" of the private insurance companies.
Will find in a few months when I renew, assuming I meet the "strict criteria", how the private plans compare to ICBC's.
LongHaul
Fledgling
 
Posts: 111
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 8 posts
Joined: Oct 12th, 2011, 9:41 pm

Re: Incorrect Principal Operator and Denial of insurance by

Postby my5cents » Jan 19th, 2012, 10:18 am

LongHaul wrote:
alisvolatpropriis wrote:
LongHaul wrote:Thanks for the tip my5cents. Will have to remember on my next renewal to ask my ICBC Agent about non ICBC optional insurance coverage. From the discussion at viewtopic.php?f=26&t=37881 and from what some people have said one can get more coverage for the same or less cost. Plus one person who had to use it and found the service was excellent.

Thinking about it, all the times I have renewed with my ICBC agent not once has the agent suggested looking at a non ICBC supplier for the optional insurance.


We (agents) generally don't always make suggestions to clients about private insurance as there is generally a handful of people that would financially benefit from it. Private insurance companys have a strict criteria of what they are looking for.


The people I know of who have switched to private insurance for the optional coverage are what one could call "Joe Average Drivers". Know at least two of them have an accident free record. They still had to ask for information on what the private insurers could offer. Then the information was produced. Based on cost and what was offered by the private insurer they switched their optional to private. They didn't have any trouble meeting the "strict criteria" of the private insurance companies.
Will find in a few months when I renew, assuming I meet the "strict criteria", how the private plans compare to ICBC's.


I would be cautious of all alisvolatpropriis' comments. Based on the incorrect information supplied on one needing un/underinsured coverage to protect against a liable driver being in breach (previously addressed) other components could be as far off.

Most insurance companies are concerned with the last 4 or 5 years, nothing more than that.

My wife and I used the BCAA Autoplan agent when we asked for a quote of what private coverage would cost in comparison to ICBC and were told we would save about $20 a year. What I didn't consider is that not all agents sell the same private insurance. Looking at it now, I'm guessing that CDI would have saved me the $130 +, but that was likely not the private insurance company represented by BCAA. I should have asked, which company the quote was coming from.

From alisvolatpropriis' statement, I'm left to assume that they work at an Autoplan agency. Their job as "agents" is to make insurance recommendations to their clients as to the best coverage at the best prices. It concerned me that they said : (we) "generally don't always make suggestions to clients about private insurance".

One would think that knowing the insurance business and knowing the demographic that does qualify for private coverage, a good auto insurance agent would automatically as a client that falls into that demographic if they wanted a private insurance quote. Mind you a good agent would also know how to spell.

I know when I renew my house insurance, my insurance agent doesn't even mention that they have put me with a new company, when better rates or coverages are available.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Übergod
 
Posts: 1732
Likes: 135 posts
Liked in: 106 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to British Columbia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests