ICBC

[Logitack]

love icbc, fair, balanced, prompt service

[Lady tehMa]

Indifferent.

If you have an accident you have to assume they are out to cut the bottom line at your expense and compensate for it - fortunately my husband has done so when he has had to deal with them (though that was quite some time ago, but I doubt much has changed).

[GordonH]

Indifferent.

If you have an accident you have to assume they are out to cut the bottom line at your expense and compensate for it - fortunately my husband has done so when he has had to deal with them (though that was quite some time ago, but I doubt much has changed).

That is how all auto insurance work be it private or public paying out the lowest possible claim they can get. Another thing all of them also hope you don't seek out your legal rights. (depending on the claim).
So if anyone expect that private auto insurance is going treat you better in a claim, you maybe sadly mistaken.

[MAPearce]

I'm sad to say it but , It just won't happen....

There's not a government ANYWHERE that would kiss off $770 million of EASY money...

[damngrumpy]

I sure don't want to go back to the old days with the private cut throats operating or
should I say manipulating the system. The infrastructure alone that belongs to you
and I would be lost as they would sell it for a song and we have done that too many
times in our past. Auto insurance would go up and your coverage would end up being
less. You would have to fight with other insurance companies and the only happy
people would be lawyers. This is especially true with under insured and so on that would
rise in the event of private insurance taking over.
Nope don't want those guys back in BC

[steven lloyd]

The infrastructure alone that belongs to you and I would be lost as they would sell it for a song and we have done that too many times in our past.

I bet the "Liberals" already have a lineup of friends and prospective buyers waiting for the fire sale.

[netfreak]

Public > private insurance. I've worked up to the highest discount with ICBC but if I went to somewhere with privatized insurance I'd probably pay double based on my age and vehicle type.

[cv23]

Why get rid of ICBC?
It would make more sense to just get rid of their monopoly. Let/make ICBC compete in an open market.
If ICBC is indeed so great and so cheap, as some of you believe, then there is no way private companies will be able to compete or even get a foot hold in the province. If ICBC is not so great or so cheap then they will lose customers and eventually be forced to cease operations.
Until there is open market competition no one can say if public or private insurance is better.

[albertabound]

Open it up let govt. insurance go on the open market, your ins, rates would drop.

[workthatwedo]

:sunshine:
Open it up let govt. insurance go on the open market, your ins, rates would drop.

Please explain how. Right now it is mandatory that ICBC insure everyone in BC. They cannot refuse coverage (unless there are exceptional circumstances). If you were to strip ICBC of their monopoly, you would have to grant them the right to refuse coverage. Private insurers already do that, and only take the cream of the crop when it comes to who they will insure.

What would happen if you were to have an at fault accident, or maybe multiple of them, and all of the sudden no one will offer you collision or comprehensive coverage? Maybe they still would, but it wouldn't come cheap. I would hate to think that if I had some bad luck that I could no longer be able to have/afford insurance. Under the current system, I could have all this happen (3 or 4 accidents) and still be paying my -43% due to my twenty year safe driving record.

[cv23]

What would happen if you were to have an at fault accident, or maybe multiple of them, and all of the sudden no one will offer you collision or comprehensive coverage? Maybe they still would, but it wouldn't come cheap. I would hate to think that if I had some bad luck that I could no longer be able to have/afford insurance.

At fault accidents are not bad luck they are clear signs of poor driving habits or maybe simply incompetence behind the wheel. Under ICBC's monopoly they have to offer insurance to everyone, there is nothing that says this insurance has to be cheap! Seeing that under ICBC these bad drivers are getting insurance rates lower than they should just who do you think is paying higher rates than they should to offset the losses the bad drivers are costing ICBC?

If your neighbor causes 3 or 4 fires in his home in a year do you think its fair that your premiums should rise just so that the firebug across the street from you can get or get cheap insurance?

[cv23]

Under the current system, I could have all this happen (3 or 4 accidents) and still be paying my -43% due to my twenty year safe driving record.

You really think so do you? Under the current system you get one "free" claim for your 20 year safe driving record. The next accident will cost you your 43% discount and every accident after that will add a surcharge.
If the cost of repairs was coming out of your pocket each time you had an at fault accident just how many of these accidents would it take before you could no longer afford to repair your car?

[workthatwedo]

You really think so do you? Under the current system you get one "free" claim for your 20 year safe driving record. The next accident will cost you your 43% discount and every accident after that will add a surcharge.
If the cost of repairs was coming out of your pocket each time you had an at fault accident just how many of these accidents would it take before you could no longer afford to repair your car?

Hey Krusty, you should check your facts before you go and post misinformation. You clearly have no idea how ICBC's claims rated scale works. This information is available from either your broker or right here: http://www.icbc.com/autoplan-insurance/understand-costs/crs.pdf. It took me all of 30 seconds to locate the correct info.

Still laughing? If you read how it works I can have 3 at fault claims and retain my -43%. A forth claim would take me to -30%. I could have five claims in one year and still have a minimal discount (-5%).

[maple leaf]

Then where would the Liberals get the money from to prop up their blunders and miss management ,and to line the pockets of their friends and insiders.No ICBC won't be going anywhere soon.

[cv23]

Hey Krusty, you should check your facts before you go and post misinformation. You clearly have no idea how ICBC's claims rated scale works. This information is available from either your broker or right here: http://www.icbc.com/autoplan-insurance/understand-costs/crs.pdf. It took me all of 30 seconds to locate the correct info.

Still laughing? If you read how it works I can have 3 at fault claims and retain my -43%. A forth claim would take me to -30%. I could have five claims in one year and still have a minimal discount (-5%).

Actually I think you are the one who needs to call an agent as you are making a whole lot of assumptions regarding the brochure you referenced.
According to the brochure you can currently be receiving a 43% discount and make just 3 at fault claims only to find yourself paying a 75% premium. 5 claims and you'd be off the scale.

What the brochure clearly stated is:

The exact discount or surcharge you receive will
depend on factors including:
• future claims
• driving history
• previous claims of the registered owner and
principal operator
• whether the insurance on other vehicle(s) is
cancelled or not renewed.
The exact amount you’ll pay in premiums can
only be determined when you renew your
insurance policy or take out a new one.

As I've said before I see no reason to get rid of ICBC, what we need to get rid of is ICBC's monopoly. Or are you concerned that if ICBC's monopoly was eliminated that poor drivers, maybe like yourself, that will make 5 at fault claims in a year would actually have to pay an appropriate rate for being a hazard on our roads?