ICBC a mess....

[my5cents]

Will ICBC still be required to insure everyone, or be allowed to do risk based insuring?

The Huffington Post article has nothing to do with ICBC.

ICBC's "risk based insurance" is calculated on the number of liable claims free years of driving a driver has, or the reverse the number of at fault claims.

A person with no driving/claims experience, no matter their sex, age, marital status, pays "base rate". From base rate if they have an at fault claim, they go up a number of steps and pay a surcharge. If they are claims free they accumulate a discount.

The closer one is to base rate the more an at fault claim affects the surcharge. If a person has a full discount, the first at fault claim doesn't cause a surcharge. There's a whole formula.

The entire premise is letting each driver prove themselves either a risk or not. The break comes for the new driver who pays base rate, verses the much higher surcharge private charge, based on age, sex and marital status.

The insurance problem in BC cannot be fixed without a no fault scheme. Even if BC switched to private insurance, the nature of the plaintiff bar and the courts would keep the cost high, until no fault was enacted.

The problem is the high number of pain and suffering claims for minor fender benders, that can't be curbed with anything other than no fault. The best private insurance company in the world would still be required to charge high rates without the implementation of no fault. That's what other provinces have done.

The lawyers, of course don't want this. Anyone who thinks those ads on TV by these ambulance chasers is because they are worried about people's rights, is naïve in the extreme. The plaintiff bar I guess has some weight with the government.

So many say, "I haven't had a claim in <zillion> years, I should be paying way less. Those bad drivers should be paying way way more". There is only so much money in the pot and with the frivolous claims coming in by the car load (no pun intended) even if ICBC drastically increased the surcharge for their "frequent flyers" and young males, and unmarried males, it wouldn't be enough to stop the bleeding.

[Merry]

In recent years many provinces, including Alberta, have instituted forms of "no fault" auto insurance. This type of insurance restriction drastically helps auto insurance companies remain profitable, by restricting small tort claims for pain and suffering. The completely different playing field is what now makes it impossible to compare "my friend who lives in AB with the exact same car pays way less" type arguments. (check it yourself)

In my opinion, our provincial government will have to so what most other provincial government have done and institute some form of "no fault" auto insurance in BC.

Which is exactly what they SHOULD do, because I and many others are tired of paying super high premiums just so people can make frivolous claims for minor injuries.

When someone suffers a major trauma as a result of an accident that's one thing, but minor accident claims should be limited to reimbursement of actual expenses, and that's all.

[TimmyE]

The government announced that they will hire PWC to audit 100 files to find out whether there has been fraud.

1. What's the matter with their own staff to do the review or even the Auditor General.
2. 100 files is a small number to look over. Looking at 100 is not going to solve much.
3. There's no limit on PWC's contract. They can bill whatever they want
4. I think they are looking into the wrong place. They should be concerned with the number of high paying managers, whose job should include, making sure no one is ripping off ICBC (#1 above).

[maryjane48]

http://theprovince.com/news/local-news/ ... 8119fdf9ae

[LordEd]

PwC Canada will conduct interviews with current unionized and management staff from ICBC and review industry best practices.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4OvQIGDg4I

[Rider59]

ICBC is supposed to be an Insurance company.. so it should act like it. All these intersection improvements and other roadway improvements , signage, etc. being paid with ICBC premiums is wrong. Ill bet if ICBC stuck to the business of insurance and corrected all of its internal problems such as overpaid staff and top heavy management there would be no shortfall.
If these top heavy management are so good and worthy of bonuses, why can't they fix the mess called ICBC.. just saying.
I thing there needs to be a constitutional challenge here.. Private insurance companies should have the right to compete for all insurance business in BC, not just collision and let the people choose their insurer. If ICBC gives them the best value for the buck they will remain in business.. if not.. bye bye. That's only fair.

What I would like to see instead is have ICBC help pay for mandatory retesting every 5 years when one renews their DL.

[LongHaul]

An interesting read. Have to see if the NDP will stop the transfer of "dividends" from ICBC to General Revenue?

Some excerpts from the article.

The recent announcement of a wide-ranging audit at ICBC has a retired government insider recommending a new operation model to make the Crown Corporation viable again.

Richard McCandless blames creative accounting for profits being raided by past governments to cover budget shortfalls, so he’s not surprised ICBC lost more than half $1 billion last year.

“The cost per claim and the number of claims have been going up, especially in the last two to three years, but there are definitely more soft-tissue injuries — better known as whiplash — which are costing policy holders a lot more money in recent years. Every other province in Canada either caps the pay and suffering or doesn’t allow it at all. It’s making a lot of lawyers a pretty good income.”

http://www.news1130.com/2017/11/12/retired-icbc-executive-suggests-crown-corporation-go-bankrupt/

[00fxd]

That may be, but go and have a windshield installed in Ab. It is substantially less costly. ICBC dictates the pricing and like in every instance ICBC is grossly in competent in paying TOO much. When one needs a windshield in Ab. they just go get one instead of paying for glass insurance year after year and probably never getting one. Like me. ICBC is a travesty.

"ICBC dictates the pricing and like in every instance ICBC is grossly in competent in paying TOO much."
Do you just pull a fact out of the air, and announce it as though it is true ? Actually the price ICBC pays for windshields was negotiated by the ARA (Automotive Retailers Association) with ICBC. The ARA contended that the prices it insisted on were bare minimums and negotiations were tough and heated.

So why is it then that used car dealers go to Ab when possible to have windshields installed for the reason that I stated?

Following the established pricing system, ICBC would learn of glass shops that were willing to waive deductibles to encourage customers to attend their shops verses a competitors. It is tough for a windshield shop to win customers, when there is no difference to the customer,,, a windshield is a windshield. Shops will detail you car, conduct a mobile operation, but basically they are all much the same.

When ICBC uncovered one of these shops waiving or reducing deductibles they were penalized fairly substantially.

Yes there are factors to consider. And ICBC from the very beginning did not understand this. Speaking of 1/2 truths do you feel like recalling the the first year ICBC was incompetently in business? The "Fair is Fair" program? Where male drivers under 25 did not have to pay higher premiums because it wasn't "fair"??!! Pardon me??!! Every insurance entity IN THE WORLD charges higher premiums for drivers in that category - FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!

Perhaps you could advise your source on this that : "Every insurance entity IN THE WORLD charges higher premiums for drivers in that category"

That sure didn't last.

I did not live in BC at that time but traveled here regularly. Maybe you are too young to recall this [fair is fair] laughable policy. When this was instated many just shook their heads. And as expected this policy only lasted about 2 years according to a native BCite that I was speaking to just this week on this very subject when the naive powers that be for ICBC discovered the [obvious to all others] errors of their way. You are trying to speak knowledgeably about the insurance industry but you obviously are not. The demographic of male driver under the age of 25 pay higher insurance premiums than others. I did, you did and to debate this is ludicrous. That is how the insurance industry works. Risk management.

I think you'll find that ICBC remains committed to a policy of non-discrimination. A new driver, be they male, female, age 16 or 76, get the same discount, 0%. As each driver, be they M/F 16 or 76 accrue years of non-liable claims driving, they are given discounts on their insurance.

Apparently they were new in the business and had not taken any training. And the same type of incompetence has been rampant all the way through. Blundering through and making policies that don't make any sense at all. Over staffed at the top by bureaucrats that don't know the business but making over $100k and understaffed by the middle workers that know what they are doing. But when things get tough those at the top are not going to lay themselves of. Just like every government run entity.

When ICBC was created, there were growing pains. The core of ICBC hires were from the private auto insurance industry. I think if you check the history of ICBC you will see that until the last 10 years or so, it was fully competing with other provinces that remained with private insurance.

In recent years many provinces, including Alberta, have instituted forms of "no fault" auto insurance. This type of insurance restriction drastically helps auto insurance companies remain profitable, by restricting small tort claims for pain and suffering. The completely different playing field is what now makes it impossible to compare "my friend who lives in AB with the exact same car pays way less" type arguments. (check it yourself)

You are correct, in the recent past (10 years of so) the "Over staffed at the top by bureaucrats that don't know the business" you refer to were the result of the Liberal government medalling in the staffing of ICBC's upper management. They placed highly renowned and experience auto insurance managers from the private sector. The government, ignorant and not willing to listen, placed their picks from the private sector to run ICBC. The methods used in the private sector do not work (obviously) in a government owned and run insurance company.

In my opinion, our provincial government will have to so what most other provincial government have done and institute some form of "no fault" auto insurance in BC.

[maryjane48]

Thanks to the bclibs icbs is yuge mess

[dontrump]

Insurance rates in BC would be fairer+ lower if
1) reduce huge management salarys
2) reduce management numbers
3) get out of the property business sell all propertys and lease whats needed
4) be more vigilant in sorting out scams and frauds
5) stick to insurance ICBC should not be involved in ANYTHING
except supplying insurance policy's
6) put stricter limits on liability payouts

[GordonH]

Insurance rates in BC would be fairer+ lower if
1) reduce huge management salarys
2) reduce management numbers
3) get out of the property business
4) be more vigilant in sorting out scams and frauds
5) stick to insurance ICBC should not be involved in ANYTHING
except supplying insurance policy's

Add 1 more thing:
Any possible surplus generated from premiums (including private insurance option) goes back into ICBC and not into the Provincial general revenue.

[my5cents]

Insurance rates in BC would be fairer+ lower if
1) reduce huge management salarys
2) reduce management numbers
3) get out of the property business
4) be more vigilant in sorting out scams and frauds
5) stick to insurance ICBC should not be involved in ANYTHING
except supplying insurance policy's

All of those items, some of which actually save ICBC money, wouldn't help enough to worry about.

The one key,,,, NO FAULT.

I'm really not sure what "the property business" is. If you are talking about investment holding, do you really think that insurance companies keep our premium dollars in a bank ? NO insurance company does that. If ICBC wasn't investing our premium dollars the rates would be even higher.

Ernst & Young were commissioned to do a study on ICBC by the Liberal government just before they lost power. The report is long but informative.

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

[GordonH]

Insurance rates in BC would be fairer+ lower if
1) reduce huge management salarys
2) reduce management numbers
3) get out of the property business
4) be more vigilant in sorting out scams and frauds
5) stick to insurance ICBC should not be involved in ANYTHING
except supplying insurance policy's

All of those items, some of which actually save ICBC money, wouldn't help enough to worry about.

The one key,,,, NO FAULT.

I'm really not sure what "the property business" is. If you are talking about investment holding, do you really think that insurance companies keep our premium dollars in a bank ? NO insurance company does that. If ICBC wasn't investing our premium dollars the rates would be even higher.

Ernst & Young were commissioned to do a study on ICBC by the Liberal government just before they lost power. The report is long but informative.

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

One of the biggest issues of No Fault insurance is having a spotless driving record means nothing. Since even if person has that very thing they still have to make a claim to have their vehicle fixed (premiums go up because of that claim), even though 100% reason for accident was the other driver. All it takes is 1 ever small claim, so there goes the spotless record.

[maryjane48]

Insurance rates in BC would be fairer+ lower if
1) reduce huge management salarys
2) reduce management numbers
3) get out of the property business
4) be more vigilant in sorting out scams and frauds
5) stick to insurance ICBC should not be involved in ANYTHING
except supplying insurance policy's

Try telling bclibs that .
I agree fully with what you propose but the rightwing. Is inept at governing and here we are

[my5cents]

One of the biggest issues of No Fault insurance is having a spotless driving record means nothing. Since even if person has that very thing they still have to make a claim to have their vehicle fixed (premiums go up because of that claim), even though 100% reason for accident was the other driver. All it takes is 1 ever small claim, so there goes the spotless record.

Where are you getting your information ?

The term "No Fault" concerns minor Pain and Suffering claims.

The CRS system (Claim Rated Scale) will still be in effect, in fact the report recommends it be enhanced to hammer, repeat claimants even more.

Check out what is currently happening in Canada on the report (page 164 of the report or Page 170 in the pdf file)

The easiest was to explain it, is to compare No Fault to Worksafe BC. You get hurt on the job when another employee drops a brick on your head. Worksafe will pay for your medical, your wage loss and rehab, but you CAN'T sue the other employee.

If it's a serious injury Worksafe will even give you a pension.

In the auto insurance world, generally it is a Threshold No Fault. Meaning if its a huge claim with catastrophic injuries you can sue, the goal is to get rid of the "whiplash Willies".

If we went to private auto insurance like so many think is best, the private auto insurance companies, I'm sure would demand it.