foodsmith wrote:.........(derogatory comments to/about Bman removed).................. but I am confident enough in my knowledge on this one to invite you into my arena on this topic any... day... you... choose.
To open it up: ICBC's 'guesstimation' of hundreds of millions in losses due to Fraud has been debunked time and time again as a means to justify poor internal resource management and allocation of funding.
It's a red herring in every way; but if you wish to carry on backing up your rebuttal, a source would be helpful... if not necessary.
So, if ICBC's estimation (you feel you have to denigrate the description to "guesstimation") of $600 million is wrong, what is the correct figure ? It's certainly not the figures in the "report" you linked.
ICBC's 2015 claims costs were $3.79 Billion and $600 Million represents 16%. (I'm relying on the article you linked, I have no idea if the numbers are correct)
The article goes on to state
"Vehicle damage costs ($1.16 Billion), because these repair costs are based on the actual cost of parts or ICBC's approved auto body labour tariff" (this amount should be excluded)
Let's look at this $1.16 Billion, of which 16% would be $18.5 Million.... "Vehicle damage costs", would also include, stolen and vandalized vehicles (damaged and or totalled) and vehicles smashed up in staged accidents to name a few kinds of losses.
So nobody in BC has set their own vehicle on fire, arranged for their poorly maintained over financed truck to be stolen and sent off a cliff ? Nobody has staged the theft and destruction of their vehicle by fire on their high mileage, poor condition lease vehicle that they must return in pristine condition ?
The writer goes on to say the $310 Million in defense costs should not be included.
Do you think that every claim that goes to court is a legitimate claim ?
Part 7 claims (no fault), If I stage a collision, I'm certainly going to feign injury and "prove" same injury with medical appointments, therapy, and wage loss, all part of Part 7 claims.
The report stated
"A 2012 KPMG study for Ontario said fraud accounts for between 9% to 18% of claims costs". OK, lets say that's exactly correct. What happens when an Ontario insurance company detects a suspicious claim, perhaps one that they can't actually outright deny ? They minimize the loss and NEVER sell that claimant, insurance again (likely hoping the claimant will victimize another insurance company so the loss picture evens out)
Does ICBC ? No, they MUST sell this claimant insurance again, albeit they can refuse parts of it. So if you were in a jurisdiction where your company couldn't mitigate their future losses by denying coverage, what do you think that would do to the percentage of fraud in you claims picture ? It would be even higher than the jurisdiction that couldn't deny coverage.
Your comment in an earlier post
"To be Fair, the amount of overall insurance claims industry-wide found to be truly fraudulent is incredibly small"..... is completely false an not supported by the industry.
Oh and the article writer's comments on charges laid and conviction.
This one is owned by ICBC's SIU (Special Investigation Unit), they have insisted on recording stats on the number of "charges" (counts) laid per year and then the number of "conviction" for that year.
For one thing if I charge you in October of 2017 with "Fraud", "Public Mischief", and "Forgery", 3 "charges" and in June of 2018 you make a plea deal with Crown and plead guilty to one count of "Fraud", what happens in just this one example ?
Stat 2017 : 3 "Charges Laid"
Stat 2018 : 1 "Conviction"
Normally nobody is charged and convicted in the same calendar year. It's a stupid stat and not worthy of keeping.
If you know so much about auto insurance, I would have thought you would have addressed the earlier unfounded criticism that :
- "it makes me wonder what insurance if for"
- "the insurance companies involved should step up and cover anything he needs immediately"
- "I suspect that the driver of the Audi didn't have enough coverage for the health care needs of the people he hit"
- "They drag their feet so to speak until it's determined who should pay"
Well for starters, the first insurance that kicks in is No Fault coverage, from ICBC. It takes care of medical, and wage loss to a max of, I think $300 a week, since it's no fault it doesn't matter who's at fault, even the negligent driver (you know the idiot that caused this mayhem) if he wasn't dead would get that.
Also EI benefits will kick in if the passenger qualifies. Likely the taxi driver will be covered by WorkSafe BC if he chooses.
Yes it will be a long involved process assessing the claim, for starters because at this stage, unless someone has a crystal ball we don't know what the long term results will be for each of the injured.
"but I am confident enough in my knowledge" ? Really ?
