832 replies to this topic

[Mattjvd]

ICBC is pretty meh to me. I don't think it's fundamentally broken, it's quite similar to private options. Correct me if I am wrong, but ICBC used to be much lower than other jurisdictions with private insurance, but that gap has closed. My hang-up is: Is there a market failure in the auto insurance sector? I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I don't see one. So if not, it's not the government's business to run the providers.

[Mike K.]

Maybe the Liberals plan was to siphon so many billions from the corp that they would be forced to bring their rates in line with private insurers.

It'd be very bad press if the industry turned private and rates skyrocketed. At least this way the rate jump for some won't be as hard felt. That's my take on ICBC, anyways. But if we are to eventually turn to private insurance I'd rather it be done under the Liberals than the NDP for the reasons stated earlier.

[lanforod]

It's not like the money goes to line pockets so much as pay for other government services. Siphon capital from ICBC, fine, so long as it keeps income taxes lower. What difference does it really make in the long run?

[sebberry]

It's not like the money goes to line pockets so much as pay for other government services. Siphon capital from ICBC, fine, so long as it keeps income taxes lower. What difference does it really make in the long run?

 

None.  Unless you're an NDP member, then it's just fuel for your cause.

[VicHockeyFan]

It's not like the money goes to line pockets so much as pay for other government services. Siphon capital from ICBC, fine, so long as it keeps income taxes lower. What difference does it really make in the long run?

 

I think the average guy at the bus stop would gladly have car drivers pay more, instead of his income tax going up $300 a year.

[spanky123]

It's not like the money goes to line pockets so much as pay for other government services. Siphon capital from ICBC, fine, so long as it keeps income taxes lower. What difference does it really make in the long run?

 

It is all the same pocket. So ICBC makes a profit, it is not like private insures don't. 

[LJ]

The only thing I don't like about ICBC is that they represent everyone and it is in their best interest to find you at least 25% at fault.

 

In private practice my insurance companies lawyer will go after your insurance company to get me and him a good settlement.

[VicHockeyFan]

✪ BREAKING: NDP government says ICBC rates to shoot up 6.4% on November 1st – for average driver, that’s at least $60/year

 

 

Attorney General David Eby has announced ICBC rates will be hiked 6.4 per cent, starting November 1st. He says "drastic action" is needed to fix financial problems at the insurer.

 

 

Lol.  Well, 6.4% a year is I guess a bit drastic.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 September 2017 - 12:28 PM.

[jonny]

6.4% versus the usual 4%? I believe the rate increase was 4.9% in 2016! 

[VicHockeyFan]

Eby can say whatever he wants about how the thing is gonna get fixed. 

 

But it's not that complex, insurance is premiums money in, claims money out.  A drastic change to one can affect the other.  But the only thing that's gonna fix claims (downward) is changing the system.  The Trial Lawyers Association will not like that.   And consumers will not like higher general rates.

 

I don't know, would dramatically increasing deductible amounts be accepted by the public?  Your collision minimum deductible is, say, $5,000 or $10,000 for an at-fault collision?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 September 2017 - 01:02 PM.

[Daveyboy]

Hopefully the NDP government will not raid ICBC for $$$ to put into general coffers like the Libs did year after year........

[LJ]

Eby can say whatever he wants about how the thing is gonna get fixed. 

 

But it's not that complex, insurance is premiums money in, claims money out.  A drastic change to one can affect the other.  But the only thing that's gonna fix claims (downward) is changing the system.  The Trial Lawyers Association will not like that.   And consumers will not like higher general rates.

 

I don't know, would dramatically increasing deductible amounts be accepted by the public?  Your collision minimum deductible is, say, $5,000 or $10,000 for an at-fault collision?

It's the medical and liability claims that are the most expensive. Everybody is convinced that they are going to get cheated by ICBC they never accept what is offered, they want to litigate it. If there was transparency and fixed guidelines about what you would receive and people trusted the institution costs would go down dramatically. I have had a couple of claims with ICBC over the years and have found them to be very responsive, but there was no injury/liability claim.

[On the Level]

I think the average guy at the bus stop would gladly have car drivers pay more, instead of his income tax going up $300 a year.

Considering the guy at the bus stop has his neighbours pay almost all of his fare?  Transits "target" is 30% recovery, which they don't come close, then Grayhounds revelation over them being taxed but transit not, what is the true cost to taxpayers? 80%....90%?

 

Transit users shouldn't be attracting attention less them being asked to be on the same footing.  

[lanforod]

Eby can say whatever he wants about how the thing is gonna get fixed. 

 

But it's not that complex, insurance is premiums money in, claims money out.  A drastic change to one can affect the other.  But the only thing that's gonna fix claims (downward) is changing the system.  The Trial Lawyers Association will not like that.   And consumers will not like higher general rates.

 

I don't know, would dramatically increasing deductible amounts be accepted by the public?  Your collision minimum deductible is, say, $5,000 or $10,000 for an at-fault collision?

 

Consumers have the choice to set that already, so I do. My deductible is 5k, except for glass. My premium is around 1070. Still pricey, IMO (though I think cheap compared to the rest of Canada?), but it hasn't really gone up much over the years it seems, about 5% in 4 years.

Edited by lanforod, 05 September 2017 - 07:56 PM.

[VicHockeyFan]

The leader of the B.C. Greens says the provincial government should not rule out major changes to the way auto insurance is delivered through ICBC.

 

In a statement issued today, Andrew Weaver said the system "is overly litigious and adversarial".

"Payouts for minor bodily injuries have increased 365 percent since 2000," Weaver said. "Every other public insurance system in Canada either limits certain types of claims or operates as a no-fault model."

 

He made the comment after Attorney General David Eby announced a 6.4 percent increase in ICBC's basic insurance rate. This came after ICBC posted a loss of $916 million in the last fiscal year.

 

https://www.straight...ance-save-costs

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 September 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[sebberry]

Weren't there protests in the street back in the 90s when no-fault insurance was proposed?

[VicHockeyFan]

Yes, by the trial lawyers.

[m3m]

It's the medical and liability claims that are the most expensive. Everybody is convinced that they are going to get cheated by ICBC they never accept what is offered, they want to litigate it. If there was transparency and fixed guidelines about what you would receive and people trusted the institution costs would go down dramatically. I have had a couple of claims with ICBC over the years and have found them to be very responsive, but there was no injury/liability claim.

 

Well, there are some guidelines, although they are in the form of judgments from BC courts.  If the courts say that a person suffering injuries A, B, and C is entitled to $50,000 that essentially becomes law.  ICBC will not offer what the courts and judges have said is appropriate for your injuries.  ICBC will offer you what they have budgeted for your case. And these two values rarely match. 

 

I was in a car accident a number of years ago and just settled my case last year, and at first I was dealing with the adjuster myself. The adjuster's first offer was so low it didn't even cover my out of pocket expenses. I eventually got a lawyer involved.  And ICBC got a lawyer involved.  The case was quickly settled after that.  The way my lawyer explained it to me was that it was his job to get as close as possible to what the most generous judge would award and ICBC's lawyer's job was to negotiate a settlement closer to what the stingiest judge would award.  

 

Had ICBC just offered me what the courts would've given me in the first place, the whole thing would've been resolved quickly.   But their business practice is to nickel and dime their customers and refuse to pay what the customers are entitled to until they absolutely have to. 

 

However, I don't think ICBC can survive if in each case they paid out what a court says is appropriate.  Rather they rely on people accepting less than what they are entitled to.  I don't personally agree with the ethics of this business model, but I suppose that's just the reality of how insurance companies operate.  I'm not sure there is a realistic and workable way to have both low premiums and fair payouts. Like everything in life, you get what you pay for.  If you want to pay low premiums, prepare to get shorted when you have a catastrophic car crash. 

[Mike K.]

^yes, that's exactly how it works.

[VicHockeyFan]

Yup that is what I said earlier too. You can't have high claim costs and low premiums. It's fairly simple.