ICBC a mess....

[my5cents]

The one way besides being a monopoly that money is wasted is through FRAUD.
I'm not talking about the people getting mangled with broken bones etc.
There's NO crash too small to milk if you play your cards right because everyone feels entitled to the government since they won't get caught, much like welfare fraud, or workers comp to a degree.
Try that with private insurance, they will catch you on that BS, then you are toast.

So, I'm to gather from that, that you've never heard of ICBC's SIU ? (Special Investigation Unit)

What you've insinuated, is just about as opposite as you can get, with all government insurance and especially ICBC.

ICBC's SIU, is "DLU". (don't you just "love" three letter acronyms ?) Designated Law Enforcement Unit.

That mean the SIU Officers in ICBC's Special Investigation Unit, are peace officers. When ICBC's adjuster's, or tip line get a tip on a fraud, nobody phones the police and hope they get some cooperation, they call their own SIU.

As for private insurance, depending on the insurance company they may have some type of internal anti fraud program (certainly not peace officers), they may involve a private company call the Insurance Bureau of Canada (yes, I know the name they've picked make them sound like an official government department) They are a for profit investigation organization that logs claims from their member companies (for which they charge a fee).

A good example of how private insurance looks at fraud, is what has happened in the US. So many private insurance companies were uncovering fraudulent claims, then "buying off the claimants as low as possible" and saying nothing, just refusing to sell any insurance to the claimant again. The claimant would then victimize a different insurance company. That company never being altered by the first company. The theory if Ins Co. #1 gets stung and they let Ins Co. # 2 get stung it evens out their loss picture. Oh, of course the premium paying public are affected by higher rates.

This happened so much with PRIVATE AUTO INSURANCE that many US states created legislation that required private insurance companies to prove that they had an effective fraud prevention program in place before they were allowed to increase rates.

Not really the picture you painted.

[jimmy4321]

Honestly it doesn't really matter because there's enough people making money through this monopoly directly and indirectly to keep the BS alive. Most people know this, so maybe the tipping point is coming and the gravy train will end.

[lesliepaul]

Insurance, be it home or vehicle is something I NEVER want to ever use............unfortunately it has been several times in my life..........nothing catastrophic but none the less. The sad part now is a young family member was hurt almost 6 years ago and within the first year a $7500 settlement was offered. Countless appointments, Physio, Massage, Chiro, Pilates, Occupational Therapist and Medical Specialists. Just shy of the 3 year limit left the person with no choice but to get legal council.

I will mention that when an Occupational Therapist is brought on board they are not only looking at or for the persons limitations because of the accident but can ALSO uncover whether someone is trying to "fake" injury and if so the final reports can and will state this to the person.............clients can be dropped by lawyers depending on these results.

The unfortunate part in this is that it appears ICBC sees ONLY fraud if initial offers are not accepted and treats you as such.

[Merry]

There are lots of little things that could be done to help improve ICBC's bottom line. And while each individual idea may be "small change", as the old saying goes if you "look after the pennies, the dollars will look after themselves".

For example, a new windshield these days can cost as much as $2000 (outrageous but true, given all the fancy features many of todays windshields incorporate). And windshield claims are a frequent expense to the Corporation. So why doesn't the Government help prevent so many broken windshields by making it mandatory for people to install mud flaps on their vehicles?

Distracted driving costs the Corporation a fortune in claims, so why not increase fines to get the message across to all those who continue to use their cell phones while driving that we absolutely will no longer tolerate it? $1000 for a first offense as well as confiscation of the phone, increasing in $500 increments for each subsequent offense, should do the trick.

Additionally, we could help prevent fraud by not allowing people to sue for minor injuries. Provided people are compensated for any out of pocket expenses resulting from the accident, there should be no need to pay them for minor pain and suffering, whether real or imagined. Accidents are part of life, but they shouldn't be part of a "get rich quick scheme".

I'm not suggesting that implementing any or all such ideas will solve all of ICBC's woes, far from it, but implementing lots of small ideas like that should help a bit if there are enough of them. The best people to suggest such improvements are probably the people who work on the front lines of the Corporation, and see where much of the waste is happening. So why not approach those workers and ask for their input into changes they think will help improve the bottom line? After all, it's in their own best interest to see ICBC succeed.

[my5cents]

There are lots of little things that could be done to help improve ICBC's bottom line. And while each individual idea may be "small change", as the old saying goes if you "look after the pennies, the dollars will look after themselves".

For example, a new windshield these days can cost as much as $2000 (outrageous but true, given all the fancy features many of todays windshields incorporate). And windshield claims are a frequent expense to the Corporation. So why doesn't the Government help prevent so many broken windshields by making it mandatory for people to install mud flaps on their vehicles?

Distracted driving costs the Corporation a fortune in claims, so why not increase fines to get the message across to all those who continue to use their cell phones while driving that we absolutely will no longer tolerate it? $1000 for a first offense as well as confiscation of the phone, increasing in $500 increments for each subsequent offense, should do the trick.

Additionally, we could help prevent fraud by not allowing people to sue for minor injuries. Provided people are compensated for any out of pocket expenses resulting from the accident, there should be no need to pay them for minor pain and suffering, whether real or imagined. Accidents are part of life, but they shouldn't be part of a "get rich quick scheme".

I'm not suggesting that implementing any or all such ideas will solve all of ICBC's woes, far from it, but implementing lots of small ideas like that should help a bit if there are enough of them. The best people to suggest such improvements are probably the people who work on the front lines of the Corporation, and see where much of the waste is happening. So why not approach those workers and ask for their input into changes they think will help improve the bottom line? After all, it's in their own best interest to see ICBC succeed.

Yes that's the saying, "take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves". Forgetting we don't have pennies any more, do you realize how many pennies they're are in just one billion dollars ? Do you have a hundred years to see a significant change ?

[lasnomadas]

@Merry:
That all makes sense, but I'd like to add one more, if you don't mind. It's been my experience after much winter driving on our highways, is that since highway maintenance has been privatized, the sanding vehicles aren't spraying 'sand' on our roads anymore; they're spraying gravel. I've had stones almost as big as golf balls strike my windshield. There's plenty of sand in this province. Why are they using gravel? I suppose gravel is cheaper to buy than sand.

[Merry]

If you re-read my post, I did say that such improvements wouldn't solve the whole problem; far from it. But the point is that every little bit helps. Even small, seemingly insignificant changes can soon add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, so if such savings can be found, why not implement them?

Changes like that, combined with an overhaul of their management system to make sure it's not "top heavy", and a commitment from the Govt to stop raiding the profits, will all go a long way towards helping to keep our premiums down.

Another suggestion I read somewhere, is for the insurance company to stop insuring some of the more expensive (and unnecessary) "improvements" to modern day vehicles, as a way of forcing the car companies to stop increasing the costs as much. It's not as radical idea as you might think, given that there are already some very expensive vehicles that ICBC won't insure.
http://www.news1130.com/2016/11/23/icbc ... xury-cars/

Maybe they need to take the idea discussed in this article, and start applying it to some of the outrageously expensive improvements that are now commonplace on ordinary, everyday vehicles as well (e.g. things like those very expensive windshields I referred to in my earlier post).

[Merry]

This paper is an interesting read. It outlines a study ICBC commissioned into ways to reduce rates, and contains some interesting insights.
http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/company- ... Report.pdf
The following quote refers to the "elephant in the room" when it comes to the biggest reason ICBC is not sustainable:

British Columbia has a litigation-based insurance model, which allows not-at-fault drivers to sue at-fault drivers for both economic loss (lost wages, treatment costs, material damages) and pain and suffering, regardless of severity of injury. BC is the only province in the country that has not modified this adversarial model. All other Canadian jurisdictions have reformed their insurance schemes over the past 20 years in response to escalating claims costs and concerns regarding affordability. The comprehensive care (or injury) model, as in place in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, does not generally include the right to sue for pain and suffering arising from minor injuries. Certain hybrid models (designed to bring benefits from both models) typically use caps to limit the payment for pain and suffering costs caused by minor injuries.

While everyone agrees people need to be reimbursed for actual costs such as lost wages etc. is it really appropriate to cause ICBC to incur court costs caused by law suits for pain and suffering resulting from minor injuries? Do people really need to be compensated for minor pain resulting from an accident? I don't think so, because no amount of money is going to lessen the pain, only time and rest will take care of that when the injury is minor and the pain is temporary.

When someone is left with chronic pain it is a different story, but compensating for every little thing is a luxury we can no longer afford. ICBC should pay people their "out of pocket" expenses following an accident, but that's all they should have to pay when injuries incurred are only minor.

[Merry]

This is another interesting fact from that same paper:

Minor injuries account for 20% of total annual cost, while serious and catastrophic injuries account for less at 17%. In most other jurisdictions, minor soft-tissue injury costs are only about half of more serious or catastrophic injuries.

• Legal costs account for 24% of total annual costs, greater than the cost to run ICBC and benefits received by either minor injuries or non-minor injuries

Given these facts it seems to me to be a "no brainer" for ICBC to do something to reduce both those legal fees and those minor injury claims.

[my5cents]

If you re-read my post, I did say that such improvements wouldn't solve the whole problem; far from it. But the point is that every little bit helps. Even small, seemingly insignificant changes can soon add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, so if such savings can be found, why not implement them?

Changes like that, combined with an overhaul of their management system to make sure it's not "top heavy", and a commitment from the Govt to stop raiding the profits, will all go a long way towards helping to keep our premiums down.

Another suggestion I read somewhere, is for the insurance company to stop insuring some of the more expensive (and unnecessary) "improvements" to modern day vehicles, as a way of forcing the car companies to stop increasing the costs as much. It's not as radical idea as you might think, given that there are already some very expensive vehicles that ICBC won't insure.
http://www.news1130.com/2016/11/23/icbc ... xury-cars/

Maybe they need to take the idea discussed in this article, and start applying it to some of the outrageously expensive improvements that are now commonplace on ordinary, everyday vehicles as well (e.g. things like those very expensive windshields I referred to in my earlier post).

I just don't think you understand the scope of the problem and the dollars involved. Yes you did say it wouldn't solve "the whole problem". In fact. legislating mud flaps, for example wouldn't save enough to be noticed.

ICBC's biggest payouts come from law suits, if you could reduce them by 25%, now you're talking.

How many law suits do you think ICBC receives ? Well it's around 300.

Not bad eh ?

All the hoopla around "not selling insurance to expensive cars. YES, that will do it ! Yes,,, finally something big.!

What if you blast through a red traffic light, or turn left and miss that little sports car in the far curb lane, half hidden behind the big truck, SMASH ! You are at fault and you have just totaled a McLaren.

Oh, it "doesn't have ICBC insurance" Definition : Does not have ICBC own damage coverage. BUT the collision isn't the McLaren's fault, it's yours. Yes, the McLaren does have third party liability coverage with ICBC, it's mandatory that ICBC sells that to everyone, even guys driving $200,000 McLarens. BUT the cost of this claim is coming out of YOUR third party liability insurance, all $200,000 plus pain and suffering to the poor rich kid driving the over priced bucket of bolts.

Oh,,,,, that's 300 a day.

[my5cents]

Given these facts it seems to me to be a "no brainer" for ICBC to do something to reduce both those legal fees and those minor injury claims.

Yes, now you're talking.

It's called "No Fault" (in one form or another). Our Liberal government has shied away from it. Likely the strong lobby of the plaintiff bar. (first rule of being a parasite, don't kill the host, but greed,,,,)

This will cost billions and billions of dollars..... to all those hard working ambulance chasers.

Oh, and those folks we all hear talking,,,, "I got ICBC, I wasn't really hurt but I'm going to make a bundle....."

The claimants in minor collisions will be treated like they would be treated by Work Safe BC. You're hurt on the job, you get medical, rehab and wage loss, you can't sue. It's surprising how quickly an injury heals when one's eyes are taken off that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[lasnomadas]

I didn't misread your post, Merry. I merely added one other improvement ICBC could make to cut costs. Sand doesn't break windshields.

[dontrump]

Honestly in my opinion as I have previously stated is ICBC can make all the claims in the world(no pun intended) about how its medical and personal injury claims that are killing them but when you look at the bureaucracy they themselves have created
in lands and property's purchased and the salvage yard systems;; the large number of bureaucrats that run different departments and the fact they also run the complete training and road safety advocate programs everywhere in BC
and add to that all high paid union and non union positions (over paid in my opinion in lots of cases ) its no wonder they are going broke; They should stream line the claims systems by using more outside contractors ;; sell off property's and lease their offices etc ;; privatize the salvage systems ;; cut back on upper management as 1/2 of them do nothing at all of any consequence on a daily basis; I mean JHC the average person has no idea just how inefficient ICBC is currently being run
nuff said as tile says its a mess and in my opinion fixable with a slash burn and get tuff situation
an example of what I say look at the Vernon claims centre; A huge building that cost a fortune to staff and maintain and does very little over all on a daily basis ;;The salvage yard there !!! A complete waste of space and situation on Triple AAA prime land ;;

[Merry]

I didn't misread your post, Merry. I merely added one other improvement ICBC could make to cut costs. Sand doesn't break windshields.

I know lasnomadas. My comment immediately following your post was in response to the post above yours (I just didn't notice your post before hitting the "submit" button. My bad.

Anyway, for what it's worth I agree 100% with what you say. One time we were driving down Hwy 97 near Quesnel and a massive rock hit our windshield (which was brand new at the time, having just been replaced) damaging it beyond repair. I filed a complaint about the size of the rock, and was told I must be mistaken because there is legislation governing the maximum size of such rocks, and my description exceeded that limit. So, without proof (i.e. the actual rock or photo of same) the contractor would be given the benefit of the doubt.

Not only did ICBC have to cover the cost, but we got stuck with a second $200 deductible, having only just paid out the first one.

Assuming this happens a lot, it would appear to be in the Government's best financial interest to more closely monitor the size of the material being used by contractors on our roads.

[my5cents]

Honestly in my opinion as I have previously stated is ICBC can make all the claims in the world(no pun intended) about how its medical and personal injury claims that are killing them but when you look at the bureaucracy they themselves have created
in lands and property's purchased and the salvage yard systems;; the large number of bureaucrats that run different departments and the fact they also run the complete training and road safety advocate programs everywhere in BC
and add to that all high paid union and non union positions (over paid in my opinion in lots of cases ) its no wonder they are going broke; They should stream line the claims systems by using more outside contractors ;; sell off property's and lease their offices etc ;; privatize the salvage systems ;; cut back on upper management as 1/2 of them do nothing at all of any consequence on a daily basis; I mean JHC the average person has no idea just how inefficient ICBC is currently being run
nuff said as tile says its a mess and in my opinion fixable with a slash burn and get tuff situation
an example of what I say look at the Vernon claims centre; A huge building that cost a fortune to staff and maintain and does very little over all on a daily basis ;;The salvage yard there !!! A complete waste of space and situation on Triple AAA prime land ;;

It's interesting how someone, with an opinion, which we all have the right to have, then presents that opinion as those it is proof of something.

For some reason, it appears that you have some type of sore spot for the Vernon Claim Centre. It is one of the smallest claim centres, the property is shared with ICBC Salvage Operations, creating a multi use facility.

The Vernon Salvage Yard, is responsible for a region and many salvage sales, coordinated out of that facility are for vehicles hundreds of miles away, stored under contract.

As for the claim centre, the next closest to the South is Kelowna, to the East Nelson, to the North, Salmon Arm. So it's not as though we have claim centres closely lumped together.

The property that ICBC owns has been owned for many decades. If that property is sold, yes there would be income, now whether that would go to ICBC or the government, I don't know. But after all those properties are sold, how would monthly lease payments cut costs ? Wouldn't they increase costs ?

You somehow think that ICBC, as a billion dollar insurance company, doesn't track claims costs, administration costs, etc. Failing to track something as simple as those costs would indicate major negligence in the administration of a corporation. Leaves me to wonder your source.

Considering most provinces has some type of no fault liability coverage and BC doesn't, and such a program would obviously save a great deal, the question is obviously : Who dictated that our system remains an open liability system, ICBC ? or the Liberal Government ?