ICBC a mess....

[jimmy4321]

my5cents

I can't help but think you have skin in the game beyond just being a consumer.

[Merry]

I've been thinking the same thing, although I do agree that a "no fault" system is the way to go, because spending more on legal fees than it costs to run the entire business is ridiculous. However, all the smaller efficiencies need to be implemented as well, because they collectively add up to a large amount of money that can be used to help limit future premium increases.

Every little bit helps, and an efficiently run business is a successful business.

[my5cents]

I've been thinking the same thing, although I do agree that a "no fault" system is the way to go, because spending more on legal fees than it costs to run the entire business is ridiculous. However, all the smaller efficiencies need to be implemented as well, because they collectively add up to a large amount of money that can be used to help limit future premium increases.

Every little bit helps, and an efficiently run business is a successful business.

"spending more on legal fees, that it costs to run the entire business is ridiculous" ? I don't know where you get that, unless you are interpreting payouts as "legal fees". Legal fees are fees charged my lawyers, they don't include loss payout.

Just because others have the opinion that ICBC is tremendously inefficiency, doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure about the current status, but when the stock market was providing a decent return, all the wages and non-claims expenses were paid by the returns on investment.

[Merry]

If you go back and re-read my previous posts you will see that I got the information from ICBC themselves.

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.]

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/company- ... Report.pdf

The information document goes on to say that ICBC operating expenses are only 15% of their overall budget.

It is in order to reduce those legal fees that ICBC would like to get away from allowing people to sue for pain and suffering caused by minor injuries. Suing for suffering caused by major injuries would still be allowed.

[my5cents]

If you go back and re-read my previous posts you will see that I got the information from ICBC themselves.

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.]

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/company- ... Report.pdf

The information document goes on to say that ICBC operating expenses are only 15% of their overall budget.

It is in order to reduce those legal fees that ICBC would like to get away from allowing people to sue for pain and suffering caused by minor injuries. Suing for suffering caused by major injuries would still be allowed.

Yes, thanks, I've now read and appreciate the report you attached.

I misunderstood your phraseology of "more on legal fees than it costs to run the entire business is ridiculous". I defined "costs to run the entire business", as including payouts. I see the author of the report also defined it as you did.

Yes, a threshold no fault (minor crash, no cash) would eliminate a major number of minor injury pain and suffering claims. I think there will always be high legal costs but if a big chunk of the 20% currently being paid out for that type of claim can be eliminated with the corresponding reduction of legal fees, it will be a major start. Trouble being it will take years for the pending claims to dissipate.

[Merry]

The report I cited offers several possible solutions to reduce the rates, but of all the options listed, this one is my favourite:

Key structural changes to achieve savings:
Fundamental change to system from current adversarial nature to comprehensive care model:
- Significantly enrich accident benefits, available to not-at-fault and at-fault without going through litigation process
- No benefits for pain and suffering
- Right to sue available only in instances of criminal negligence
Estimated savings and average premium by 2019:
System savings - $1.43b
Vehicle premium - $1,340 $630 less than current forecast (and $210, or 13.5%, less than today)
Key outcomes compared with current state: 
Focus shifts to claimants’ care and treatment, available to claimants sooner for more effective results 
Savings achieved through substantial reduction in number of claims, costs of pain and suffering being removed from system, and significant reduction to legal costs and disbursements. 
Frees up the court system for other more strategic uses 
System remains fault-based as premium costs will be driven by driver actions

Similar system designs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Zealand

[dontrump]

as said ICBC should be a insurance company only;; ICBC should not be involved in road safety programs ;;road side safety checks
points programs;; safe driving programs;; etc etc etc that's all up to the province of BC to handle
ICBC should not be in the salvage business;; ICBC should not be in the property management business:: icbc should not be in the stock investment business ;; ICBC should be a Insurance company only

[my5cents]

The report I cited offers several possible solutions to reduce the rates, but of all the options listed, this one is my favourite:

Key structural changes to achieve savings:
Fundamental change to system from current adversarial nature to comprehensive care model:
- Significantly enrich accident benefits, available to not-at-fault and at-fault without going through litigation process
- No benefits for pain and suffering
- Right to sue available only in instances of criminal negligence
Estimated savings and average premium by 2019:
System savings - $1.43b
Vehicle premium - $1,340 $630 less than current forecast (and $210, or 13.5%, less than today)
Key outcomes compared with current state: 
Focus shifts to claimants’ care and treatment, available to claimants sooner for more effective results 
Savings achieved through substantial reduction in number of claims, costs of pain and suffering being removed from system, and significant reduction to legal costs and disbursements. 
Frees up the court system for other more strategic uses 
System remains fault-based as premium costs will be driven by driver actions

Similar system designs in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Zealand

I think the answer is obvious, don't you ?

They are basically talking about No Fault, however, the part that confuses me is : "Right to sue available only in instances of criminal negligence"

I would have thought the right to sue when catastrophic injuries occur. "only in instances of criminal negligence" is strange in that crim neg is one of the breaches of ICBC coverage. Not saying ICBC wouldn't pay, but then would be chasing the driver for the payout. If I'm made a quadriplegic, because someone blew a red light, or because someone was driving like a maniac, I'm still a quad and deserve compensation more than wage loss and rehabilitation.

[my5cents]

as said ICBC should be a insurance company only;; ICBC should not be involved in road safety programs ;;road side safety checks
points programs;; safe driving programs;; etc etc etc that's all up to the province of BC to handle
ICBC should not be in the salvage business;; ICBC should not be in the property management business:: icbc should not be in the stock investment business ;; ICBC should be a Insurance company only

Road safety initiatives, is a main component to lowering accident frequency and severity.

In many jurisdictions where there is private auto insurance, a percentage of every premium dollar is taken by the government to conduct such programs.

With the change in the priority that police have placed on accident investigation, the only reliable source for collision statistics is ICBC. As well, ICBC handles the job of Motor Vehicle Branch and retains all the driver's databases.

So you think ICBC should pay the government a percentage of premiums, then supply the government with it's statistics on claim and driving so the government can create and maintain a Traffic Safety department ?

ICBC should job out it's salvage ? So private industry can take a piece of the "action" ?

"icbc should not be in the stock investment business" WHAT ? How do you think ALL insurance companies make their money ? They invest premiums ! They may pay out just about all the money they get in premiums, but during the interim those premiums are invested. ICBC used to pay ALL it's business expenses from investments. That's what they do.

For example in 2015 ICBC earned $920 million from investments. You would,,,, keep the money in a chequing account ?

Alberta is a good example of what happens when private industry is involved in the selling of salvage and the registering of vehicles. Spun odometers, salvage swings (VIN from a totalled vehicle used to renumber a stolen), and clones (VIN from a vehicles registered many jurisdictions away, is duplicated and used to renumber a stolen, effectively making two vehicles with the same VIN)

[maryjane48]

thats the job of the govt and police . icbc should only do what they were intended to do .

[lesliepaul]

thats the job of the govt and police . icbc should only do what they were intended to do .

Oh god!

[jimmy4321]

Scrap ICBC, it's a mess

[Merry]

If I'm made a quadriplegic, because someone blew a red light, or because someone was driving like a maniac, I'm still a quad and deserve compensation more than wage loss and rehabilitation.

I think the idea is that you would be compensated for all your actual out of pocket expenses (such as lost wages and any special equipment you needed) but would not be able to sue for pain and suffering (unless the accident was the result of criminal negligence).

And, provided people receive compensation for actual costs, I doubt any amount of money in the world can compensate for the pain and suffering they experience. There are some things that money can't buy.

When the injury is the result of a genuine accident (as opposed to a criminally negligent act) insurance should cover the costs incurred as a result of the accident. But, as suing the driver who was at fault is really a form of punishment (as opposed to being of any real help to the victim) it's only appropriate when it can be proven that the driver was criminally negligent.

By getting away from an American style litigious system, while still ensuring victims are fully compensated for all their out of pocket expenses, we can reduce our auto insurance rates by a sizeable amount. And as someone who has been driving for over 40 years, without so much as a parking ticket, I'm tired of paying through the nose for my insurance. I'm retired now, and finding it harder and harder every year to come up with the high cost of coverage, and I don't want to have to give up my car (because I live in an area without either bus or taxi service). So, if adopting a system similar to that in Manitoba will help reduce my rates, I'm all in favour of it.

[dontrump]

Like we said My5Cents ICBC should first and foremost be a insurance company

not a traffic control business ;;not a road side safety business ;; not in the driver license business;; not in the salvage business
not in property management business;; not in the investment business
I never said don't invest spare funds;; I said as all the other stuff sublet it

JUST be a INSURANCE company

[jimmy4321]

A long road to privatization, but it's coming. There's gonna be a political cost to try to revive ICBC.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4258351