ICBC

[Ken7]

There is quite a distinction in law. While you are dealing with ICBC as "your insurance company" you are in a contractual agreement. You paid them $XXX.XX for a certain coverage and they have agreed to cover you. If they wrongly don't comply with the contract you can sue ICBC for "Bad Faith" or for "breach of contract".

If all the vehicle stuff is over and you were not at fault and ICBC, on behalf of the other driver, won't pay you what you think they should, you sue the other driver (and as a result of being his insurance company, ICBC) for negligence for the act that caused the car accident.

I realize all of what you have stated, however. I paid them to insure me, I find it funny they are forcing me into a corner where I feel there is a need to be represented by a lawyer as they would just as soon give you a minimal amount, far short of case law or court settlement.

I think what they preach as being there for you, is only when repairing your vehicle, that was the easy part. Sadly if injured you are almost certainly needing a lawyer to get a settlement in line with the laws past precedence.

[my5cents]

I realize all of what you have stated, however. I paid them to insure me, I find it funny they are forcing me into a corner where I feel there is a need to be represented by a lawyer as they would just as soon give you a minimal amount, far short of case law or court settlement.

I think what they preach as being there for you, is only when repairing your vehicle, that was the easy part. Sadly if injured you are almost certainly needing a lawyer to get a settlement in line with the laws past precedence.

Actually at that point, you didn't pay them to insure you. The other driver paid them to insure him for this part of the claim. You are now in an adversarial position with ICBC as they are "the other driver's insurance company". That's the hard part to get your head around.

If we were in a private insurance province. You have Allstate and I have Farmer's Fund and I hit you and I'm at fault. You will have to deal with my insurance company, Farmer's Fund, to try to resolve, financially, the issues after your insurance company have arranged to fix your car (if you bought own damage coverage) and paid you whatever no fault benefits this scenario's provides for.

You might say "boy that other vehicle's insurance company is sure hard to deal with". In this case both cars are covered by ICBC, and that's where the confusion comes up. Your insurance company is ICBC, but in the dealings pertaining to tort (pain and suffering) they are trying to give you as little as possible and there's nothing you can legally do except to sue for your losses. You can't sue ICBC for breach of trust or bad faith because in these dealings you don't have a contract with ICBC for this part of the claims because they are representing the other driver, you're not their "insured".

It's an obvious point of confusion for very obvious reasons. You have an accident, where you are not at fault. You meet with "your adjuster" (and this person IS your adjuster) they are helpful, arrange for a rental car, make sure the repairs on your car are proceeding, you fill out medical benefits and wage loss benefit forms, ICBC is your friend... this is ICBC acting as your insurance company and they are. You have a contract with them that says they must help you.

THEN.... that part is over. You now want some cash for all the trouble this other driver caused to you. You've been given some wage loss, ICBC has paid for some physio, ICBC has fixed your car. Now "your insurance company" is playing hard ball. NO, at this point you are dealing with the other driver's ICBC adjuster, who is acting for him. This ISN'T "ICBC, your insurance company" this is "ICBC the other guy's insurance company".

I completely understand why this is confusing.

[Hassel99]

Great comments my5.

Its hard to understand that in the beginning of the process ICBC is YOUR insurance company, but near the end of the process (collecting on the 3rd party liability of the other driver) ICBC is no longer YOUR insurance company, they are representing the 3rd party that hit you. 1 claim, 1 company, 2 sides of the coin.

[my5cents]

Great comments my5.

Its hard to understand that in the beginning of the process ICBC is YOUR insurance company, but near the end of the process (collecting on the 3rd party liability of the other driver) ICBC is no longer YOUR insurance company, they are representing the 3rd party that hit you. 1 claim, 1 company, 2 sides of the coin.

Exactly.

An unfortunate element of all insurance is that every insurance company (if they don't want to get in major legal trouble) will comply exactly to what they must do by contract and then pay as little and as slowly on the other.

Private is no different, perhaps, depending on the company, worse. I remember back in the pre-ICBC days getting my car hit in a parking lot. As you had to do back then, I went around and got three estimates from three body shops. I dropped off the three estimates at the other driver's insurance company. I got a call the next day to come down and get my cheque.

The estimates were all in the $700 range, the lowest, for argument sake was $700.

I picked up the envelope and walked out. In my car I opened the envelope to find a cheque for $500. I went right back in.

Me: "Ah, excuse me,,, uh you've made a mistake the lowest estimate was $700, this cheque is for $500."

Adjuster: "Well that's what you're getting. I tell you what, if you don't like the amount, sue us."

18 year old kid. You cash the cheque and by doing so you accept the settlement.

This is a third party claim, the insurance company wasn't mine, it was the other driver's insurance company, so there's no contract responsibility between this insurance company and me. If this was my insurance company and I had "own damage" coverage, they would have had to pay the proper amount or they could be sued for breach of contract or bad faith.

Had I had own damage coverage, my insurance company would have fixed my car and then they would have claimed the amount back from the other driver's insurance company. Likely not with the same problem I had. (the same reason snakes don't bit lawyers, professional courtesy)

[matai]

ICBC just announced another 5.2% rate hike for basic insurance. That's like what... 10% in a year?

In other words, 500% more than inflation?

[my5cents]

ICBC just announced another 5.2% rate hike for basic insurance. That's like what... 10% in a year?

In other words, 500% more than inflation?

That will go over like a cement balloon.

They may or may not NEED the increase, no doubt they've got charts and graphs to prove they do. But the optics of giving the government hundreds of millions of dollars from profits being made on the optional side and then raising the price of the mandatory is B. A. D.

You know who is pulling the strings and I don't think they care what we think, at least for a few more years, anyway.

Actually in 2013 they asked for 4.9% and got a 5.2% increase but have deferred the balance of .3% until 2014. So if they get the 5.2 % increase they're asking for, that will, on top of the .3% remaining increase, make the increase for 2014 - 5.5%

[John500]

Time to get rid of ICBC The sooner the better. Reality is it will never happen as its a great cash cow to the government for balancing the books. Anyone out there that can figure out the true cost of auto insurance in BC? That is all the monies that went to governments divided by the individual insurer and see what the true cost is?
Yes another 5+% increase. Way above the rate of inflation. But do they care Nope. They do and can do whatever they want.

[Carrs Landing Viking]

How does a 5.2% rate hike equate to 10% per year?
Your numbers don't make sense. Please explain.

[my5cents]

Time to get rid of ICBC The sooner the better. Reality is it will never happen as its a great cash cow to the government for balancing the books. Anyone out there that can figure out the true cost of auto insurance in BC? That is all the monies that went to governments divided by the individual insurer and see what the true cost is?
Yes another 5+% increase. Way above the rate of inflation. But do they care Nope. They do and can do whatever they want.

Couple of points on your comments.

First the caveat, I don't like the government taking monies from the optional pot. If ICBC can afford to charge motorists less for option coverage, then charge less. ICBC was formed to be not for profit. That means those greasy sleazy money grubbing politicians should keep their grimy little paws off the money. (there I feel better already)

As for "Way above the rate of inflation". Well the rates for this type of coverage are dictated by the courts. If all of a sudden there is a phenomenal increase in court awards, that increase will have to be reflected in the rates. This isn't something that is or can be geared to inflation. False logic.

As for getting rid of ICBC. Private insurance would have the same type of issues with the civil courts that ICBC is having. Private insurance also has to turn a profit for their investors. I think, unlike optional coverage, the mandatory side of ICBC's book of business doesn't make a profit, so for a private company to sell the mandatory coverage and make a profit, they would have to increase rates higher than what ICBC is charging.

As for the optional. ICBC is making a profit. So much so that government "bag men" routinely take their cut. We hear from a few on these threads that private insurance is charging so much less for coverage, however I think that is the exception, not the norm. I'd say, in the least, on average that private would likely charge the same or more for optional coverage than ICBC.

The bottom line, the cost of insurance in BC would likely be higher under private. The same or slightly higher for optional coverage and definitely higher for mandatory coverage.

There are also some of us left who still remember private coverage in BC and if you think politicians are sleazy you ain't seen nothing.

[westbankkid]

ICBC raises prices. They shouldn't be allowed to raise prices. The Liberals took 700 million dollars from ICBC profits a number of years ago and put it into general coffers. They have been milking it ever since.

[matai]

How does a 5.2% rate hike equate to 10% per year?
Your numbers don't make sense. Please explain.

Because they already increased it by 5% a couple weeks ago.

[my5cents]

Because they already increased it by 5% a couple weeks ago.

I though you were completely wrong on this, but.......

The confusion is that the BCUC did give approval to the rate increase in June 2014, HOWEVER there was an interim rate increase as of November 2013. the BCUC actually gave ICBC a 5.2% increase. The remaining .3% will be added to this year's increase.

So yes, ICBC got an increase of 5.3% in June and now in August are asking for 5.2%, so 10.5% increase.

However the 5.3% increase approved in June 2014 was implemented (4.9% of it) on an interim basis in Nov 2013. Likely this new 5.2% increase will be implemented on an interim basis in Nov 2014, and approved in June of 2015.

Making the yearly average increase 5.25%. Last year the increase was mixed with a small decrease in optional coverage cost for those customer who purchased that from ICBC.

[Donald G]

Today I received a letter from ICBC pointing out that during the years since 2008 one of my vehicles has been wrongly classed by the ICBC Insurance Agency As a result I had underpaid ICBC by about $25.00 per year on one of my two vehicles.

As noted in my earlier post the error was discovered this year when the Agency sought further information needed to determine if I qualified for the insurance rebate that was being handed out to people who had OVERpaid over those years.

They forgave my UNDERrpayment, which I appreciate, but failed to mention that during the same years they had OVERcharged me on a second vehicle, in a similar amount.

Perhaps I should forward a similar letter to them forgiving them for charging me the OVERpayment on the second vehicle during the same years. With a Thank You card noting my appreciation for them trying to straighten out their apparently multiple pricing errors.

[hobbyguy]

ICBC is not immune from messing up. They employ people, and sometimes people have brain fluffs.

That said, ICBC is at least somewhat accountable to the public.

It amazes me that folks who want to dump ICBC somehow don't follow the money equations. "We", through a democratically elected government, are the shareholders of ICBC. ICBC makes a profit, and a chunk of that profit is returned to the shareholders as dividends. IF ICBC were dumped, it would most likely be sold to large insurance company, let's call them Corp A. Corp A would buy ICBC for what reason? To make money for their shareholders. Corp A will maximize prices, and Corp A will attempt to minimize claim payments. Corp A will return some of the profits as dividends to the shareholders, the bulk of which will be wealthy folks somewhere else. Those dividends, that used to support "us" by providing government revenue and helping keep other taxes down, will now be used such purposes as buying gold plated terlet seats for yachts. "We", i.e. our government, will need to replace that lost dividend revenue. Taxes, or fees, for other things will then rise.

Small we, individual taxpayers and insurance buyers, will then get what? The same or worse service - with no accountability at all. The same or worse insurance pricing - with no accountability at all. Higher taxes to boot.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't complain and keep ICBC honest. What it does mean is that ICBC may, in a slightly more meaningful fashion, be forced to listen.

Anyone who has had a beef with a large corporate service provider should realize that they don't really give a rats what you think. And if it's a serious beef, your only recourse is to hire a lawyer - and you are still behind the eight ball and basically tilting at windmills because the corporation has a whole army of lawyers.

The other factor to consider in the whole situation is that you can buy coverage for all but the very basic from private insurers. I've noted that there is really only one private insurer that chooses to compete with ICBC for that optional coverage. If ICBC rates and service are so bad, wouldn't a whole raft of them see a profit making opportunity and be actively advertising and competing for that part of the business? If the private companies saw that they could offer the coverage at lower prices and generate profits they'd be all over it.

Why are ICBC after a rate increase that exceeds "inflation"? Step one - the CPI is NOT a measure of the cost of living - which most of us consider to be inflation. StatCan quietly states that. Actual costs often rise more than the CPI. Step two - all insurance companies raise their rates in response to increased risk and claims costs. Distracted driving is about to surpass drunk driving as a killer. Claims costs due to distracted driving are soaring. http://www.surreypilawyers.ca/blog/2014/04/distracted-driving-a-growing-problem-in-british-columbia.shtml Don't like the rate increase? The blame falls squarely on those of us who just "have to" answer that cell call or respond to that text right away - even though driving at the time. Look in the mirror, think about how many folks you see looking down into their laps or yacking on a phone while driving. That's who to get mad at.

[Partmanpartfish]

^^

A good post. One detail you forgot that is driving rate increases even more than the distraction of smartphones is the fact Christy and her regressive conservatives have been using ICBC as a cash cow for years. They've robbed hundreds of millions of dollars from the corp. 'Surpluses,' they call them.

When reserves started to pile up under the NDP, ICBC sent good drivers rebate checks. Christy and the gang just steal from us.

The root problem isn't ICBC. The root problem is too many people vote stupid.