Incorrect principal operator & denial of insurance

[alisvolatpropriis]

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.

It dosn't necessisarily depend if you are an "Joe average driver", it depends on type and year of vehicle, the weight of your vehicle (ex. if it is a truck it has a GVW of 5000kgs +), your sex, what you are using your vehicle for, having at LEAST 10 years of driving expierence, your ICBC discount, who will be driving the vehicle

[twobits]

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.

Based on my wifes long time experience in commission sales which also included an insurance component, I have to wonder if the lack of communicating alternative optional insurance companies has more to do with profits and ease of sale. ICBC authorized insurance brokers have everything at their fingertips in their computors. Are the competing underwriters also so convienient or is "some work" required? Other considerations are commission rates and sales level incentives. Commission and incentives alone can cause an agent to overlook what would be a cost saving to the client if it means more to the office and the agent. To further muddle the equation, as you point out, different offices will represent different underwriters.

Bottom line is never assume the agent is providing you with the lowest cost option. The office could be dictating what is pushed. Always ask what underwriters they represent and a costing for each one for your comparison. Repeat with at least one other agency.

[LongHaul]

That probably is a major reason an alternate provider for Optional Insurance is usually not mentioned by ICBC Agents even if it would be the better package.

Related to this was pointed to a presentation given at the Ontario Auto Insurance Conference discussing the Auto Insurance System in BC. This presentation was given in 2003 but could be given today with a few changes. My interpretation of the presentation is the presenter was making the point Monopolies are in a position to be very unfair with their customers and potential competitors unless they are tightly monitored. The presentation brings out the formidable influence ICBC can wield.

It would seem ICBC has accepted Optional Insurance Competition and whatever issues that existed in 2001 as per the paragraph below have been resolved. However Agents may be still playing it safe and not want their office showing up on ICBC’s radar as selling a lot of Third Party Optional Insurance.

The link to this presentation is at:
http://www.cwilson.com/publications/insurance/auto-insurance-in-bc.pdf

Part of a paragraph from the presentation follows:

“Monopoly Issues: “Things monopolies can do”
Or perhaps you could go to your brokers and advise them that, if they sell private optional insurance, their ICBC agency agreements might be cancelled, commission rates might be reduced, or technology support might be withheld. (See “ICBC Abusers Accused of Driving up Premiums: Federal Regulators say Corporation has Misused its Monopoly”, Vancouver Sun, Friday, November 2, 2001). All of which might result in the Federal Competition Bureau rapping ICBC’s knuckles (for the second time in five years). Not appropriate, you say? Well, that’s what monopolies can do.”

[LongHaul]

There is an update for the Blog at http://icbcandtrucking.wordpress.com/ which started this thread. Inserted the update below. The ICBC adjustor concluded his investigation recommending the claim be put through. ICBC Vancouver overruled the Adjuster. Discovery could be interesting. Will the Adjustor be a witness for the owner against his employer ICBC?

Update 2012/01/15:

Owner has discussed his case with a lawyer. The lawyer strongly recommends going after the Insurance Agency as well as ICBC. The reasoning is ICBC may try to move the blame to the Insurance Agency. If the Agency is not named and the Time Limit has expired the owner will be left without any recourse if ICBC succeeds in moving the blame.
The lawyer had more papers in the file received from ICBC than the Owner was given. “All” must have a different meaning depending on who is asking.
The major difference was the lawyer had the correspondence between the ICBC adjuster and ICBC HQ in North Vancouver. What the Owner was given had a sentence the adjuster had not found any evidence of deliberate PO misrepresentation. The remainder went through the various drivers who had driven the truck, how long and a conclusion who should have been declared as PO.
The ICBC adjuster’s report stated the wrong PO was not deliberate misrepresentation. The reasons for this conclusion was documented with a recommendation that the claim be put through and this was submitted to ICBC HQ. The reply back from HQ laid a total beat down on the adjuster. Reading between the lines it may be the committee at ICBC HQ was furious the adjuster had not talked to them before before writing up and submitting the recommendation? Yet the document in the ICBC Claims Procedure Manual on handling a wrong PO does not state an adjuster must contact the Committee.
This adjuster had a reputation for digging hard into claims for reasons to deny coverage. A lot of time was spent going through the Owner’s log books and asking questions. In the end the Owner was told the recommendation was to put the claim through. After being notified the claim had been denied the Owner phoned the adjuster. He was informed the file was no longer being handled by this adjuster. The Owner was curtly told there wasn’t any point in discussing the claim and he may want to get a lawyer. The Owner couldn’t confirm what recommendation the adjuster had really put in. Until now he had no idea the adjuster had fought to get his claim put through and lost a chunk of skin over it.

[LongHaul]

Renewed my insurance last week. Waited to see if the agent would ask if I wanted to compare private insurance to ICBC for the optional coverage. The question wasn’t asked and finally had to stop the agent from automatically placing the optional with ICBC. The agent said they dealt with one private insurer for the optional. The comparison was quite favorable for the private insurer with better coverage for an extra $25. However it wasn’t as good as another private insurer from whom a friend got much better optional with less cost as compared to ICBC. This renewal was done at a different agency who used a different private insurer. Here also a comparison had to be asked for or the agent would have placed the optional with ICBC. This agent did comment more people are asking for a comparison and most of them then switched to private.

Seems the takeaway from the testing to date is it will be a rare agent who will ask if you want to compare private insurance versus ICBC for the optional.

[LongHaul]

Went to the Insurance Agency recommended by a friend as per the post above to renew insurance on my second vehicle. Again the optional was going to be renewed with ICBC until I asked for a comparison quote using a third party. The agent cheerfully said this can be done, sometimes the quote will be better and sometimes it will be worse. After switching screens on the computer, more typing and questions a quote was obtained. The quote for the same (actually better coverage in some areas) was $105 less than ICBC. The insurer also provides an 800 number one can call to have a tow truck or lock assistance arranged. The charges are looked after by the insurer. The agent said with ICBC one has to call a tow truck, pay the bill and then send the bill to ICBC. Can't comment on this having never used the ICBC service.

The insurance company used by this agency is different from the one used by the other agency. It seems the optional insurance cost and features with a third party will vary depending which insurance company the agency is using.

Asked the agent if her optional was done with a third party. Answer was yes, it was a better deal in her case. Needless to say renewed going with the third party for optional.

Came to mind if too many people switch to third party optional impacting ICBC revenue, ICBC will just raise the rates on the Basic Insurance.

[LongHaul]

Interesting update in the posts for http://icbcandtrucking.wordpress.com/
Inserted the update below. Disturbing how costly the courts have become. Once the justice system is out of reach of the average citizen or small business one of the pillars of our society is gone. One way of eroding away the middle class and transforming this country into a northern version of a “Banana Republic”.

Update 2012/04/16


A short summary of Owner’s discussions with lawyers about fighting ICBC.
It must be realized the playing field is not level when one takes on ICBC. The cost of accessing the courts gives ICBC the high ground.
To fight ICBC on a fairly involved case using a top of the line law firm will probably cost about $50,000 up front and about $150,000 overall. The up front legal costs will often exceed the ICBC charge. One usually gets their legal costs covered or part of the costs after winning although there can be exceptions.
However ICBC will usually get their legal costs added to the charge if they win.
Often it comes down to simple economics. One can have a slam dunk case but will find the legal costs force them to just pay the ICBC charge or negotiate paying part of the charge rather than try to raise the money to win in court. Helps keeps rates down.
Sometimes the best option is go to the news media which may embarrass ICBC into doing the right thing.
For lower cost cases ICBC is more forgiving and often will play the good guys role. Helps their public image having people say they had a good experience with ICBC. Have a large claim and a possible problem with your policy and you will see their ugly side. It doesn’t matter if the mistake was made by the agent or even if ICBC provided incorrect advice. They will go hard for the opportunity to deny coverage and you will have to fight back just as hard.

[LongHaul]

This may be the start in fixing our legal system that is rapidly becoming unaffordable for the average citizen. The paragraphs below were extracted from a recent article in the Vancouver Sun. The entire article can be found at
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hefty+ ... story.html 
Will be interesting how the provincial government responds. Will they appeal, will they ignore the ruling or will they take positive action to resolve the problems built up over the past couple of decades.
Trying to summarize the article some key paragraphs extracted from the Vancouver Sun follow:

[After two years of deliberation, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan has struck down Victoria’s hefty civil court hearing fees as unconstitutional.

In the landmark 178-page ruling released Tuesday, Justice McEwan declared “some things cannot be for sale” and slammed the provincial government for its approach to legal funding.

“The court is an essential forum of that common life, and cannot perform its necessary function if it, like so much else, is subject to the values of the marketplace the government has used to justify the fees,” he wrote.

He went on to say: “It is evident from the sources presented that in the last two decades the government of B.C. has lost its enthusiasm for supporting the courts at a level required to fulfil their purposes.”

The decision’s effects will be substantial — lawsuits over the tragic 2006 sinking of the Queen of the North ferry, for instance, were abandoned in part because of the hurdle posed by $40,000 in fees and jury costs.

“This decision reaffirms that the courts exist for both the rich and the poor, those with small cases and those with large cases.”]

[LongHaul]

Stolen car and ICBC Insurance.

One of my neighbours who is an elderly lady recently had her car stolen. It was a Volkswagen from the mid 1990s that had been meticulously maintained by the Volkswagen dealership and had reasonably low mileage. The following describes her experience with the insurance claim as she told it to me.

ICBC offered her the book value for the car which was around $900. The lady objected to this offer and enlisted the help of the dealership to set a fair value. The dealership set a fair value of around $2,000 and offered to provide the maintenance history. A meeting with another adjuster at ICBC Vancouver HO was held over the phone. This adjustor refused to hear about any reason to adjust the settlement price and was so rude the lady was eventually reduced to tears. After this meeting the lady as she put it didn't have any energy left to deal with these people and signed the settlement. A number of weeks had already gone by and there seemed little hope of finding her car.

A few weeks later her car was found in another town not far from where it was stolen. The car was not damaged and it appeared to have been parked when it was nearly out of gas. The lady had been looking at cars and found it was going to cost her much more than the settlement to buy a roughly equivalent car. Hearing her car had been found she went back to ICBC and asked if she could return the settlement money and have her car back. The car was still parked where it was found. The answer from ICBC was no, this would be against the rules. She even offered to pay the towing but ICBC was adamant the car could not be returned to her.

Don't understand why ICBC would not accept her offer. Seems to be a win/win situation. ICBC gets their money back and the lady gets her car back without having putting out major dollars for a replacement. ICBC could have at least offered her the chance to have the car checked by a mechanic and decide if she wanted it back after adding in the cost of any repairs. Suppose one could argue since ICBC insurance paid her $900 they should pay up to $900 for anything that could be attributed to the theft. They don't seem to have any kind of flexibility.

Asked her if ICBC had told her there was an appeal process. She said no, she thought the people she was dealing with had the final say. Looking at the main ICBC appeal process on their web site it seems like she was taken to step 2 which is getting a manager involved. Am assuming this was the person on the phone from ICBC Vancouver HO. Step 3 is get a lawyer. See http://www.icbc.com/claims/claim_complaints/settlement-offer

In another section the ICBC web site states an independent arbitrator can be brought in the determine a vehicle's value. Their web site has this under Vehicle Write Off but it seems it could also apply to the value of a stolen vehicle whose maintenance record and mileage was known.
See http://www.icbc.com/claims/repair_replace/writeoff#Not_satisfied_total-loss_settlement

However since the settlement has been signed this won't be of any use.

Anyway if one's vehicle is stolen trying to get a paragraph into the settlement giving one the option of returning the settlement money and taking the vehicle back if it is eventually found would be advisable. Could save one considerable money especially for an older but in excellent shape vehicle.

[my5cents]

Stolen car and ICBC Insurance.
..........One of my neighbours who is an elderly lady recently had her car stolen.........ICBC offered her the book value for the car which was around $900. The lady objected to this offer and enlisted the help of the dealership to set a fair value. The dealership set a fair value of around $2,000 and offered to provide the maintenance history. A meeting with another adjuster at ICBC Vancouver HO was held over the phone. This adjustor refused to hear about any reason to adjust the settlement price and was so rude the lady was eventually reduced to tears. ..................A few weeks later her car was found in another town not far from where it was stolen. The car was not damaged and it appeared to have been parked when it was nearly out of gas.................Hearing her car had been found she went back to ICBC and asked if she could return the settlement money and have her car back. The car was still parked where it was found. The answer from ICBC was no..................Asked her if ICBC had told her there was an appeal process. She said no, she thought the people she was dealing with had the final say. Looking at the main ICBC appeal process on their web site it seems like she was taken to step 2 which is getting a manager involved. Am assuming this was the person on the phone from ICBC Vancouver HO. Step 3 is get a lawyer.
In another section the ICBC web site states an independent arbitrator can be brought in the determine a vehicle's value. Their web site has this under Vehicle Write Off but it seems it could also apply to the value of a stolen vehicle whose maintenance record and mileage was known.
See http://www.icbc.com/claims/repair_replace/writeoff#Not_satisfied_total-loss_settlement

However since the settlement has been signed this won't be of any use.

Anyway if one's vehicle is stolen trying to get a paragraph into the settlement giving one the option of returning the settlement money and taking the vehicle back if it is eventually found would be advisable. Could save one considerable money especially for an older but in excellent shape vehicle.[/size]

There are so many of these "Urban myths" or I guess "ICBC myths".

There are lots of errors in this story. For one, I believe total losses are still handled by a total loss expeditor (or some other title) They are basically a specialist who does nothing but settle total losses. Be that from a collision, a fire, or an unrecovered theft. An adjuster handles the claim file but the establishment of a price for the vehicle is normally handled by the expert.

However,,, even if this total loss was handled by an adjuster.....

ICBC doesn't use "book value". They use a company that evaluates each vehicle from a history of vehicles sold in the area of the loss. In each case the owner is asked the condition of the vehicle and is invited to support the vehicle's condition with maintenance records. The owner is asked about the options the vehicle has, and as well the serial number of the vehicle will help establish certain major components.

When a vehicle is extremely hard to evaluate for one reason or another, then a manual evaluation is conducted on the vehicle by an estimator. (ie, the vehicle is a mint 1956 Chev)

If there is a problem with coming to a settlement, the claimant is routinely directed to the appeal process.

If there is a problem with an adjuster, the next step would, and is, to speak with the adjuster's manager, who is NOT in ICBC Head Office, but on site.

As far as "an adjuster at Head Office", that is just not true.

If the claimant spoke to someone at head office, that would definitely be AFTER they had spoken to supervisor's in the local claim centre and certainly the person at head office would me someone like a Material Damage Regional Manager, and they would certainly direct the claimant to the appeal process, but that would have been done at the local level, long before head office would get involved.

As far as getting the vehicle back upon recovery. That happens all the time and ICBC is happy to do so. Saying that ICBC wouldn't do this is completely unbelievable. ICBC would be happy to return the vehicle and repair any damage up to the amount that would render the vehicle a total loss.

ICBC establishes the total loss of a vehicle by the formula [ACV] - [Salvage] = Total loss threshold

In other words ACV (Actual Cash Value) of a vehicle less the estimated amount that ICBC would get for the vehicle for salvage is the amount ICBC would be willing to pay to fix the vehicle.

You have a $10,000 vehicle that has an estimated salvage value of $2,000, ICBC would fix up to $8000, keeping in mind other expenses such as towing and storage that accumulates.

ICBC is a multi-billion dollar auto insurance company. Do you really think they would cause this much grief over a $900 vehicle ?

Generally when I hear these stories, it is never written/told by the actual claimant. "I had a friend, who......"

There is a whole lot of misinformation in this story.

[LongHaul]

my5cents wrote:
“There are so many of these "Urban myths" or I guess "ICBC myths".
As far as getting the vehicle back upon recovery. That happens all the time and ICBC is happy to do so. Saying that ICBC wouldn't do this is completely unbelievable. ICBC would be happy to return the vehicle and repair any damage up to the amount that would render the vehicle a total loss.”

Unfortunately in this case this is not just an Urban Myth. Wish it was. This recently happened here in the South Okanagan. Although the story is getting around like an Urban Myth as it is now a popular conversation topic in the neighbourhood and beyond on how ICBC handled her claim. My neighbour was the one who had her car stolen. This elderly lady is quite sharp, totally honest and very credible. Being away hadn't seen her for a while so asked how things had turned out with her stolen car. Was shocked at how it ended up and decided it was worth trying to summarize her story and posting it. It may be useful information for anyone who has the misfortune of having one's vehicle stolen.

Obviously am not privy to ICBC's side of story. The tangibles are the results of the claim settlement.

The lady has not been able to negotiate getting her car returned from ICBC after it was found. As she described it she asked the local adjuster if she could return the settlement money and get her car back. The local adjuster brought a person from Vancouver HO by phone into the discussion. She refers to this person as the “Vancouver Adjuster”. Using her name for this person the Vancouver Adjuster told her the car is no longer her car and they would be breaking the law by returning it. Note the word law. When I first heard the story thought she meant rules. Asked her about this today and she said the word law was used. It may be the Vancouver Adjuster meant to say rules, can't see why it would break a law if done legally with a new settlement?? She told them she really wanted the car back. It was like a family heirloom and she had planned to finish off her last few years of driving with this car. At this point she offered to pay the towing charges. The Vancouver Adjuster again said returning the car is not possible.

ICBC has her car for $900 which according to the Volkswagen Dealer was worth about $2,000.

After many weeks being without a car the lady has been forced to purchase a second hand car which the $900 only covered a small portion of the cost.

Your post on how you thought it should have been handled makes much more sense. Especially with the small amount of money involved in ICBC terms of reference. If it had been handled this way it would have resulted in one happy lady with praises for ICBC.

The only thing that comes to mind is perhaps this would have been done if a settlement had not been signed off. Although it shouldn't be difficult to rescind the original settlement and override it with a new one to allow her to take the car back. Without knowing the ICBC side of the story this is just theorizing.

When asked if they had told her about an Appeal process her reply was “What is that?” She wasn't told she could appeal and she thought “her claim was totally in their hands”.

The term “Book Value” when referring to the value put on her car was my term. She said the adjuster got the value of her car off the computer. This was before the lady asked her car dealer/mechanic for their opinion.

There has been some discussion on what can be done as the way things turned out seems so unfair. One suggestion is the lady should request a copy of her file from ICBC. This may provide some insight on ICBC's side of the story and where they were coming from. If things still seem bizarre she could take her story and the file to the local paper who probably would love a chance to dig into something like this. Sometimes publicity brings sudden flexibility into an organization to make things right.

[my5cents]

Requesting a copy of the file, is a very good idea.

Many times claimants request that "if the vehicle is recovered I'd like to buy it back" and those notes, are or should, be clearly contained in the file.

The only "thing" that would make it illegal to return the vehicle to be used as a vehicle is if, contrary to what we have been told, there was some damage on the vehicle and ICBC declared the vehicle "IRREPARABLE". This is done when there is horendous damage or sometimes when there is moderate damage and the vehicle is very old.

There are some nice "daily drivers" (old cars, "running" but tired) out there that a windshield claim would make them a total loss.

We can speculate til the cows come home. But getting the file (hoping is isn't redacted too much) should shed light on the issue.

The age of the claimant (you haven't said) could be a strong piece of an argument that ICBC staff didn't take sufficient steps to make sure she understood all the details of the claim and her options.

I do know of a case many many years ago where a slick ICBC adjuster settled a potentially high bodily injury claim for cents on the dollar involving an elderly claimant. Telling the claimant that he'd take good care of her and she didn't need to see a lawyer, because they'd just take most of the money, etc etc. Even though the file had been signed sealed and settled. ICBC reopened it and settled the claim fairly. I think the slick adjuster had to look for a new job.

As you quite rightly stated and agree, ICBC doesn't need to further create a bad immage on a $900 claim.

Would be interested in the outcome.

[LongHaul]

Let the lady know she could request her file from ICBC a few weeks back. Am doubtful she will ask for it. She is quite elderly and as she put it doesn't have the energy she once had. So she thinks she will have to accept her fate. Her other comment was if she never spoke to ICBC again it would still be too soon. Maybe someone will still persuade her to ask for her file.

Was talking to a retired ICBC employee. He didn't work as an adjuster but in his opinion he would have expected the adjuster to explain why she could not get her car back. Telling her it's against the law is not a good explanation.

As an aside at least in the departments he is familiar with has heard there is considerable internal churn going on. A number of managers have been terminated with severance and as he put it “walked out the door”. He doesn't know what the objective of this reorganizing is. Knows some of the managers affected and in his opinion ICBC is terminating good people with a lot of knowledge.

[my5cents]

Yes, I've heard the same.

If ICBC decides they don't want you, your feet won't touch the ground on the way out. If you think they are bad to deal with as an insured, you should work for them.

Just before the Liberals took over in 2001, ICBC did a purge. They offered a "Voluntary" Separation Package. Some, who benefited who were unionized employees took the package where it was beneficial to the employee. With employees from management and confidential, (not in a union) they just went around and told people they were taking it. (hundreds)

I know of a dozen who were told they were gone because they were over 54 years old. They received one week for every year of service and that was that.

They are going to more telephone handling of claims, doing more with less. I was told, for example that the claim centre in Penticton, which at one time had a staff of about 2 dozen, will eventually have a staff of two clerks. In other words, some place you can drop off a receipt or pick up a document.

The closer they run ICBC like a private company, the more likely it will go. At this point, I guess the Liberals have realized that it's a great cash cow, that's as much as they need to know.

[John500]

Seems like no matter who is in government, they treat ICBC as a cash cow. I just wished ICBC just deals with car insurance. But it seems they have their tentacils into everything nowadays. Why? Why not stick to what they have been created for. To supply BC residents with affordable vehicle insurance. And let private insurance companies compete with them. If ICBC is that good, they will get most of the business anyway. The fact that the various governments have used ICBC for transferring millions of $ to the government general accounts is wrong. Why should a government insurance company charge so much that millions can be transferred to the government general account. Case in point, Manitoba mandatory Provincial insurance had to refund drivers $400+ because monies were transferred into general government accounts. At least someone had the balls to take them on and take them to court. And then we have those who say that if that cannot happen, the government will increase taxes on other items. Well, they do that anyaway regardless. This whole ICBC thing stinks in my books. They really need some competiton in basic insurance. It will shape them up or have them fold. The argument that bad drivers have to pay more for insurance is valid. Why should I have to pay for someone elses stupidity. And even ICBC start to realize that now...after 40+ years in business.