832 replies to this topic

[DustMagnet]

So ICBC rates are going up again on April 1 by 6.3%. There is also going to be a cap on minor injuries of $5,500.

 

So why am I buying insurance coverage for $3-4 million?

 

Most injuries are minor and most vehicles are worth under $100k so will we see a trend towards folks reducing their coverage to $1million if there is going to be a cap on most injuries? 

 

"Even with the new cap on minor pain and suffering, people can still sue for such things as the cost of future care and loss of wages."

 

You might want to hold off paring down your liability.

[LeoVictoria]

So ICBC rates are going up again on April 1 by 6.3%. There is also going to be a cap on minor injuries of $5,500.

 

So why am I buying insurance coverage for $3-4 million?

 

Most injuries are minor and most vehicles are worth under $100k so will we see a trend towards folks reducing their coverage to $1million if there is going to be a cap on most injuries? 

 

I always carried $2M.   Not for any particular reason though.   I wonder what the distribution of claim amounts are in BC?  

[RFS]

So ICBC rates are going up again on April 1 by 6.3%. There is also going to be a cap on minor injuries of $5,500.

 

So why am I buying insurance coverage for $3-4 million?

 

Most injuries are minor and most vehicles are worth under $100k so will we see a trend towards folks reducing their coverage to $1million if there is going to be a cap on most injuries? 

 

This post makes no sense.  Most injuries have always been under 100k and besides the minimum is 200k so why not just buy that?  The rationale of the 2m or 3m is if you seriously injure or paralyze someone to the degree they can't work or you hit a child and they lose a lifetime of wages

[rjag]

This post makes no sense.  Most injuries have always been under 100k and besides the minimum is 200k so why not just buy that?  The rationale of the 2m or 3m is if you seriously injure or paralyze someone to the degree they can't work or you hit a child and they lose a lifetime of wages

 

What doesnt make sense? The typical policy that folks get is for 2-4 million coverage as well as underinsured  coverage. Under the new rules most payouts are $5500 plus medical and of course vehicle repair etc. If we are not using the old Tort system then why continue to push the multi-million $ coverages? How many multi-million settlements have we even heard of in the past decade? I bet less than a handful? But we are sold on the fear of what if?

[RFS]

What doesnt make sense? The typical policy that folks get is for 2-4 million coverage as well as underinsured  coverage. Under the new rules most payouts are $5500 plus medical and of course vehicle repair etc. If we are not using the old Tort system then why continue to push the multi-million $ coverages? How many multi-million settlements have we even heard of in the past decade? I bet less than a handful? But we are sold on the fear of what if?

 

Under the old system, most payouts were like 20k and since the minimum amount you can legally buy is 200k what's the difference?  I am just saying before the rule change people would buy the 2-4 million for that 'worst case scenario' accident where they say, hit a group of kids or a promising young athlete or something.  That won't change based on this 5k rule

[lanforod]

Maybe more for the coverage you also get when driving out of province and in the US?

[sebberry]

One thing is for sure:  We're now paying more for less coverage.  Is that making things more affordable, Mr. Horgan?  

 

 

My insurance is due on the 7th and my 'Estimated amount due' is $1,296.  Anyone know if this includes the 6.3% increase already?  Can't remember what I paid last year, but I know it's gone up.  

[tjv]

What doesnt make sense? The typical policy that folks get is for 2-4 million coverage as well as underinsured  coverage. Under the new rules most payouts are $5500 plus medical and of course vehicle repair etc. If we are not using the old Tort system then why continue to push the multi-million $ coverages? How many multi-million settlements have we even heard of in the past decade? I bet less than a handful? But we are sold on the fear of what if?

I have a friend who refuses to go with more than the basic insurance.  I remind him accidents happen, maybe you hydroplane or hit some black ice and cause an accident.  Think of it this way say someone is 40 that you injure and take an average income of $80k/year = $2 million plus compensation for pain and suffering, maybe they are in a wheelchair, etc and say for the sake of argument the total judgement is $3 million

 

Oh you only have $1 million in coverage?  Bye bye house, furniture, bank account, investments, etc, etc as you cram everything you own in a cardboard box and head on down to Rock Bay Landing for the rest of your life

 

Its worth the what $350 a year to have $3 million in coverage and sometimes that may not be enough.  I guess you also feel you live in a safe neighborhood, don't smoke and are super careful so you don't need house insurance either?

[LeoVictoria]

One thing is for sure:  We're now paying more for less coverage.  Is that making things more affordable, Mr. Horgan?  

 

ICBC is broke.  The new changes go a long way to fixing it.  What do you want them to do outside of privatizing the whole system (which I would prefer but isn't going to happen anytime soon)?

[On the Level]

One thing is for sure:  We're now paying more for less coverage.  Is that making things more affordable, Mr. Horgan?  

 

Because

 

 

the previous government told British Columbians their projection for ICBC's losses was $11-million. ICBC's year end loss is now projected to hit $1.3-Billion, which is almost exactly the amount the BC Liberal government siphoned out of ICBC".

 

The newspaper and website obtained the draft report on Jan. 22. It shows the previous Liberal government scrubbed several key pages that warned of a coming financial crunch within ICBC and recommended “a bold change in policy direction,” including caps on minor injury claims and higher premiums for high-risk drivers. The then-Liberal government erased the pages before the report was released publicly in 2015. 

 

http://www.iheartrad...neral-1.3589837

 

The solution?  The Taxpayer federation?

 

 

“Turning ICBC into a MEC or VanCity-style cooperative would be a sensible model so long as full private sector competition exists to serve consumers on price and product options,” Milke added.

 

https://www.taxpayer...furious-changes

 

Great.  Liberals raid ICBC of billions of dollars and don't change policy/law to be the same as Provinces that have private insurance.  Then announce the solution is a "co-op".

 

I've never had an accident or a speeding ticket, but I am also not a self centred navel gazer.  

Edited by On the Level, 02 April 2019 - 08:56 PM.

[m3m]

ICBC is broke.  The new changes go a long way to fixing it.  What do you want them to do outside of privatizing the whole system (which I would prefer but isn't going to happen anytime soon)?

 

While I think the cap on minor injury claims is long overdue, the definition of minor injury is insane.  How a concussion is considered a minor injury is beyond me. 

 

I'm still baffled as to why the NDP chose to cap the claims of injured people as the major way of reducing costs.  Isn't the NDP supposed to be the party of the middle/lower classes?  This is going to affect them more than anybody.  One of the things that is not talked about very much by the media is that ICBC is also installing new "treatment procedures."  If you have a major injury, but don't follow ICBC's treatment plan, your claim is automatically capped at 5500 also.  

 

Why not cut costs by:

1. limiting repair costs for at-fault drivers in accidents or raising deductibles for at fault drivers.  

2. targeting dangerous drivers with significantly higher premiums. 

3. making insurance available for purchase online, rather than having a bloated system of autoplan brokers. (eliminating bureaucracy bloat in general is probably a better idea).

4. actually pay out fair settlements rather than forcing people to go to court in order to get a fair settlement. 

5. stopping the practice of the government taking millions from ICBC's operating revenue to fund the general purse

6. making the roads safer, both in their condition, and by cracking down on distracted and dangerous drivers. 

[Mike K.]

Reducing its dependence on brokers is likely to result in major legal action, which is already in the works among lawyers who feel that the payout limits are unfair (they're paid a percentage of what their clients achieve through a settlement).

[Victoria Watcher]

brokers have contracts i’m sure they can be adjusted when they are up.

[LeoVictoria]

Reducing its dependence on brokers is likely to result in major legal action, which is already in the works among lawyers who feel that the payout limits are unfair (they're paid a percentage of what their clients achieve through a settlement).

Can't really take the lawyer's criticisms seriously given their insane conflict of interest in this case. The current system is a massive bonanza for them, of course they don't want to turn off the taps of taxpayer money they are hooked up to.

[LeoVictoria]

While I think the cap on minor injury claims is long overdue, the definition of minor injury is insane.  How a concussion is considered a minor injury is beyond me. 
 
I'm still baffled as to why the NDP chose to cap the claims of injured people as the major way of reducing costs.  Isn't the NDP supposed to be the party of the middle/lower classes?  This is going to affect them more than anybody.  One of the things that is not talked about very much by the media is that ICBC is also installing new "treatment procedures."  If you have a major injury, but don't follow ICBC's treatment plan, your claim is automatically capped at 5500 also.  
 
Why not cut costs by:
1. limiting repair costs for at-fault drivers in accidents or raising deductibles for at fault drivers.  
2. targeting dangerous drivers with significantly higher premiums. 
3. making insurance available for purchase online, rather than having a bloated system of autoplan brokers. (eliminating bureaucracy bloat in general is probably a better idea).
4. actually pay out fair settlements rather than forcing people to go to court in order to get a fair settlement. 
5. stopping the practice of the government taking millions from ICBC's operating revenue to fund the general purse
6. making the roads safer, both in their condition, and by cracking down on distracted and dangerous drivers.

Seems like the injury caps is best practice in other jurisdictions and a massive cost here. Maybe the definitions need to be adjusted but it seems reasonable. The other items they are also working on in your list except perhaps online purchasing. I assume there are some legal or underwriting requirements that would be tough to satisfy online.

[jonny]

The broker system is ridiculous. Why my ICBC policies don't automatically renew each year like every other insurance policy I have is unfathomably stupid. 

[Awaiting Juno]

The ICBC changes are a mixed bag.  The real risk is accepting a quick settlement and assuming your injury is minor before knowing whether or not that actually is the case.  If the condition persists and continues to have an impact on your life, you will no longer meet the definition.  So for many, the key will be to not settling too soon - and to wait until their injuries are fully resolved before doing so.  The other big thing is to know that many of the changes do not apply to collisions that happened before April 1, 2019 - so if your crash was before then, you are still entitled to pursue a claim through the courts.

 

Positives: more money for rehabilitation expenses (no more user fees), more money for lost wages (note, this is one reason to renew even if your policy isn't yet up as the lost wages amounts go from $300 per week to $740 per week).

 

Negative: No right to claim for expenses that exceed the fee limits imposed by ICBC (does not apply to crashes before April 1, 2019), no right to subrogate for costs borne by your extended health care plan, an arbitrary and unfair cap to pain and suffering for injuries that are deemed "minor", being forced to the CRT forum for claims less than $50,000.

 

As far as more severe injuries go - the old system still applies.   

 

The way in which these changes were designed and implemented leaves much to be desired - and there is a conflict of interest when the minister for ICBC is also the AG as the AG is there to safeguard the legal system and the civil rights of people, while the changes implemented directly infringe on those rights.

[Mike K.]

Yes, very well said.

[m3m]

So is the CRT is basically the equivalent of an RTB hearing?

[sebberry]

The CRT is a nightmare.  We're going through it right now with a strata dispute.  Courtrooms with lawyers aren't exactly nice places to plead your case, but you really better be of sound mind to wade through the CRT process.  I bet part of the reason for the move is that many people will simply give up.