832 replies to this topic

[DustMagnet]

Brokers can also sell you non-ICBC optional insurance.  Their expertise ought to be that they can find the best deal for you out of public and private offerings, no?

I dunno, I always just take the ICBC offerings like a chump...

[sebberry]

Brokers can also sell you non-ICBC optional insurance.  Their expertise ought to be that they can find the best deal for you out of public and private offerings, no?

I dunno, I always just take the ICBC offerings like a chump...

 

My broker did some comparisons for me and ICBC was cheapest at the time.  I dunno, I think people are too hell bent on the idea of competition saving us.

[Mike K.]

If it’s anything like home insurance then I’ll gladly welcome competition. The rates vary considerably, including coverage options and the hoops some policies make you jump through to receive coverage for a specific aspect of a home (like a wood stove) give some underwriters an advantage over others.

The best part about private insurance will be not having to share liability with bad drivers. They’ll be priced out of some plans, or heavily restricted by others, and their weight won’t apply to as high of a degree to good drivers as it does with ICBC.

That being said, I’m looking forward to seeing just what impact the new rates have on our bad drivers. They’ll be paying a lot more this renewal period, so the question is will they continue to pay or will they drop out, or fall under someone else and have to tone down their hee-haw ways. Already I’ve seen a bunch of lifted pick-ups listed for sale, perhaps more than usual, as the leadfooters wake up to a $700 fee on top of last year’s rate.

Just as an aside, I saw a Wallace Driving car blow a red light yesterday. Couldn’t see the driver but it looked like an older male.

[LJ]

^The trouble with pricing bad drivers out of plans is that some of them will continue to drive but with no insurance.

[Mike K.]

The license plate will be caught by police with ALPR technology mounted to squad cars, and failing that their plate won’t have a current decal.

We have uninsured motorists on our roads today and they’re far more likely to be weeded out by police than involved in any sort of collision or incident.

[tanker]

So here's one

ICBC apologizes for saying Vancouver Island Mountie was negligent when she was hit, killed by drunk driver

https://vancouverisl...OnT3tStBVBsRT9k

 

Basically after an uproar over ICBC claiming that Sarah Beckett was negligent in the crash with Fenton they've now apologized. Is there an organization that's worse than ICBC out there? 

 

"The deceased, Const. Sarah Beckett, had a duty of care to the Defendant, Kenneth Jacob Fenton, and to others using the highway,"

 

OK boomer.

Edited by tanker, 20 December 2019 - 06:24 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

In March 2018, the Attorney General of Canada launched a civil suit against Fenton, seeking special damages for the loss and damage to the 2009 Ford Crown Victoria police car Beckett was driving.

 

In its suit, the attorney general says Fenton’s negligence led to the fatal collision and severe damage to the police car.

 

ICBC’s response, however, filed on May 25, 2018, said the collision was caused by Beckett’s negligence. The insurance corporation charged that Beckett failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to see Fenton’s truck at a reasonable time and failed to drive her car in a careful and prudent manner, and that she operated the police car at an excessive rate of speed and failed to keep the car under control.

 

___________

 

 

But on Friday, after news of its position became public, ICBC said that response to the civil claim was an error.

 

“Clearly, the decision to suggest Constable Beckett was liable for this collision in the initial legal documents was a mistake and we are taking immediate steps to fix this error. We will be instructing our counsel to amend that defence to admit the defendant is fully liable for this accident,” ICBC said in a statement.

 

https://www.timescol...-her-1.24040268

 

that's a hell of a mistake.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 20 December 2019 - 06:38 PM.

[DustMagnet]

 

But on Friday, after news of its position became public, ICBC said that response to the civil claim was an error.

 

“Clearly, the decision to suggest Constable Beckett was liable for this collision in the initial legal documents was a mistake and we are taking immediate steps to fix this error. We will be instructing our counsel to amend that defence to admit the defendant is fully liable for this accident,” ICBC said in a statement.

 

https://www.timescol...-her-1.24040268

 

that's a hell of a mistake.

 

 

Getting caught you mean?

Edited by DustMagnet, 21 December 2019 - 01:52 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

well i suppose like with most insurance companies the default and perhaps automated response is that they blame the person trying to make a claim. so nobody manually flagged this one as "high profile".

[satellite]

They should go ahead and dismiss their Counsel while they are at it. 

[m3m]

It was a boilerplate response to boilerplate allegations. People are reading into it too much.

[sebberry]

And if anyone thinks private insurers don't pull this crap, they're kidding themselves.  

 

Welcome to the hell most people dealing with insurers have to go through.

[Mike K.]

On the other hand it does help when its two insurance companies representing two individuals, and your adjuster is convinced you weren’t at fault and will go to bat. When you’ve got ICBC vs ICBC the best case scenario for the adjusters is to lay blame on both drivers then walk away, saving ICBC the expense.

The “you’re both at fault” thing happened to me once until the police got involved and gave the adjuster an earful for describing their police report of the accident as unreliable. Had it not been for that officer going to bat for me ICBC would have washed its hands of the whole incident.

[spanky123]

It was a boilerplate response to boilerplate allegations. People are reading into it too much.

 

Agreed. Are the folks who are outraged mad because it is Ms. Beckett, or do they feel that ICBC should never defend itself against claims where someone is injured or killed?

[satellite]

I think people are probably mad because the lawyers crafted 12 reasons for why she was responsible for her own death, ignoring the fact he was wasted, fleeing police, driving a 2 ton truck like a weapon. Wonder how her children will feel when they see a Crown corporation arguing she was negligent when he slammed into her at 90km/h.  It wasn't boiler plate, they put pen to paper to come up with those reasons rather than pay out the claim.

[Rob Randall]

I was under the impression there were legitimate procedural questions that arose immediately after the crash regarding the appropriateness of Cst. Beckett's actions, namely pulling her cruiser into the street close to the path of the speeding truck. 

 

But the tragic nature of her death tamped down any interest in any kind of inquest that might have laid some of the blame on her. 

[Victoria Watcher]

^ that’s correct.

[spanky123]

I think people are probably mad because the lawyers crafted 12 reasons for why she was responsible for her own death, ignoring the fact he was wasted, fleeing police, driving a 2 ton truck like a weapon. Wonder how her children will feel when they see a Crown corporation arguing she was negligent when he slammed into her at 90km/h.  It wasn't boiler plate, they put pen to paper to come up with those reasons rather than pay out the claim.

 

Most of the time accidents are not black and white with 100% of the blame being assigned to only one party. The purpose of these cases is to try and proportion blame so that a fair allocation of costs can be awarded. 

 

So ICBC backs down after a social media outcry and now the taxpayer will foot 100% of the bill. I feel badly for the next person that comes along that social media doesn't care about as they won't be treated the same. 

[Victoria Watcher]

the exact run of events will never be known because one driver is dead the other was drunk and there were no other eye witnesses to the impact or even events immediately prior.  it would be hard to comprehend a situation where beckett was not at least partly at fault.  there was police actions towards the drunk driver prior to the impact.  it's unclear if beckett was or was not aware of the situation and dangers.

 

this is an agreed statement of facts:

 

https://www.timescol...rown-1.20808690

 

At 3:26 a.m., a West Shore RCMP corporal saw Fenton driving east on Brock Avenue toward Peatt Road and noticed his tail lights weren’t on.

 

Fenton turned right onto Peatt Road with the officer following. Fenton slowed his truck at a crosswalk 200 metres before Goldstream Avenue. Then, with a straight stretch of road ahead of him, he accelerated.

 

The officer put on his emergency lights, but no siren. He could see the back end of the truck wiggle and believed Fenton was trying to flee. Fenton didn’t initially see the police lights. When he did, it took him a few moments to realize the lights were intended for him.

 

“Because his attention was on the lights of the police car in his rear-view mirror and his reaction time was impaired due to his consumption of alcohol, Mr. Fenton failed to see that he was entering the intersection or that the light was red,” says the statement of facts.

 

Beckett was proceeding through the intersection on the green light.

 

 

 

 

what i believe we do not know is if beckett was aware of the situation unfolding.  has that been released?

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 21 December 2019 - 03:35 PM.

[Mike K.]

Can someone make sense of today’s announced changes to ICBC? Horgan’s speech made no sense, at least the clips I had heard.