How to Hurt ICBC

[guyser]

Police reports get filled out for minor accidents - private insurers will use these police reports to increase rates even if you do not make a claim.

Sorry, no they dont necessarily on both counts

But you aren't denying that both _do_ happen. And that when the do happen the insured is usually shocked because the mechanisms used by private insurers to set rates are extremely opaque.

I suppose anything can happen and does. But in a general sense no it doesnt. The police would have to be called, a report taken should the damage be over the threshhold and "perhaps" a fax sent by the police to the ins com , but normally the ins co has to buy it from the cops.

Not opaque but downright see thru. Nothing is hidden to my knowledge.

[FTA Lawyer]

Police reports get filled out for minor accidents - private insurers will use these police reports to increase rates even if you do not make a claim.

Sorry, no they dont necessarily on both counts

But you aren't denying that both _do_ happen. And that when the do happen the insured is usually shocked because the mechanisms used by private insurers to set rates are extremely opaque.

Actuarial formulae may not be easy to understand but at the end of the day they are pretty much math...nothing is being hidden or made opaque.

If you have an accident, then you no longer fit in the category with the squeaky-clean guy who has never had one, and therefore, in actuarial terms you are now a higher-risk for a future claim. People with higher risk pay higher premiums...it isn't based on claims made or amounts paid out.

FTA

[Riverwind]

If you have an accident, then you no longer fit in the category with the squeaky-clean guy who has never had one

Not quite: you no longer fit into the same category as someone who has successfully kept all of their accidents secret.

Why should one person who happens to get a police report written up have to pay more than another who did not get a police report?

Also, someone who is willing to pay low cost claims out of their own pocket should be lower risk from the perspective of the insurance company yet the actuaries don't look at that particular piece of data. All they care about is if you have had an accident.

[geoffrey]

Also, someone who is willing to pay low cost claims out of their own pocket should be lower risk from the perspective of the insurance company yet the actuaries don't look at that particular piece of data.

Sure they do. Think about it this way. Higher deductibles cover low cost claims. If you feel confident in your ability to pay a claim of say a few thousand, then up your deductible and you'll pay lower insurance.

We do this at the corporate level, that's the only reason I know anything about this. Most companies self insure up to a certain point (on physical assets, not neccessarily vehicles). It gives them a big insurance savings the higher their reserve amount is.

[Riverwind]

Sure they do. Think about it this way. Higher deductibles cover low cost claims. If you feel confident in your ability to pay a claim of say a few thousand, then up your deductible and you'll pay lower insurance.

A high deductable is not the same because you end up getting burned twice if you actually have to make a claim (i.e. you pay the deductable _and_ you pay the higher rates on your insurance). The ICBC system allows you to have a low deductable and will not penalize you if you pay for minor claims yourself. The only exception is if there are injuries.

[BC_chick]

I'm with the anti-ICBC posters on this board. I had an ambulance hit me once, the driver outright told me that it was entirely his fault (for reasons beyond the scope of this post), and ICBC found me partially at fault. The result? They only gave me 50% of my settlement as a result of this "assessment" and raised my premiums. I'm sure the fact that the ambulances pay a flat fee and my claim was quite high had something to do with it.

Thieves - that's what they are. Thank God we can at least get beyond the basic from elsewhere now. Insurance should NEVER be a crown-corporation.

[Guest ijnet]

I hate ICBC.

There should be no such thing as a monopoly, it's just a form of Communism.

If ICBC is so damn good then they should allow us to go elsewhere for insurance....if it's not as good we would then have the Option to use ICBC.

I'm 53.........no accidents ever and paying over $900 for insurance on a 97 Astro Van. I checked into

private as an add on and it was more!

I THINK AT THE YEARS END WE SHOULD GET AT LEAST 50% OF OUR PREMIUM BACK IF WE HAD NO ACCIDENTS!

[Wilber]

The thing that I don't like about the concept is the same company represents both parties so there is no need for them to act for you in the event of disputed liability. I'm not saying they go out of the way to do it but financially they are better off if they can split the blame so they have an excuse to raise the premiums of both parities.

I use Canada Direct for my optional insurance. It is less expensive plus they subsidize basic and advanced collision avoidance courses, then give you a 10% discount for five years if you take one or both of them. They are a lot of fun and for most people the discount pays for their part of the course in the first year. I appreciate that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is in order to put better trained drivers on the road, instead of just relying on testing like ICBC and the government.

[Riverwind]

I'm 53.........no accidents ever and paying over $900 for insurance on a 97 Astro Van.

So what? $900 is reasonable and most of the cost is for liability.

The thing I like about ICBC is they:

1) Allow me to pay for repairs myself and avoid any premium increases. Private insurance companies will jack your rates up as soon as they find you had an accident - even if you paid for the repairs yourself.

2) Publish clear rules for premium increases. If I have an accident I know exactly what it is going to cost me in premiums. Private insurance companies keep such information secret which puts you at their mercy if you have a claim.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

The thing I like about ICBC is they:

1) Allow me to pay for repairs myself and avoid any premium increases. Private insurance companies will jack your rates up as soon as they find you had an accident - even if you paid for the repairs yourself.

Canada Direct will also. I found this out when my kid cracked up one of my vehicles when he borrowed it while I was on vacation. The insurance company knew about the accident but allowed me to get him to pay the damages with no penalty to me. They give you one freebie anyway before you get an increase in premium. This may be because they have to compete with ICBC.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Wilber

[Guest toffee]

The rates are high because of all the accidents.... I've worked in a lot of places around the World and never sen so many crashes as here in BC. I blame it on the driving test... far to easy.

[Nat]

ICBC is suing http://www.icbcadvice.com for trying to help you deal with ICBC.

[Alta4ever]

ICBC is the most reasonable insurance company I have ever had to deal with. No private insurer would allow you to avoid a rate increase if you paid for some minor repairs yourself. All private insurers will use any excuse they can find to increase your rates.

Furthermore, ICBC publishes its rate schedules which makes it very easy to decide whether you would be better off making a claim or paying yourself. You never know what a private insurer will do. Having predictable insurance rates is a _huge_ benefit for most people.

Private insurers also look for any excuse to deny claims - their excuses may be different than ICBC but they will still come up with them.

ICBC a model of how to run a crown corporation that provides an essential service.

Not true a private insurer will allow you to pay your own claim.

[Alta4ever]

Private insurance companies will raise your rates even if you do not make a claim if they find out that you had an accident from a police report. ICBC does not care how many accidents you have as long as you do not make a claim.

Again this is incorrect. Insurance companies only raise rates if they have to pay the claim.

[Alta4ever]

That's not the point. You're placing the burden of blame of an entirely disgusting system on one person.

a) If the iraqis were not being tortuously gutted for their oil, and canada was not symbiotically dependant on the us, you wouldn't have a car to drive

The insurance industry is an astronomically bulge of corruption of everything I can think of. think about this.

This is just too painful to discuss.

If you fail to drive the road contitions or text while drive fail to oay attention it is your fault, you should be responsible for your actions, not society.

[Riverwind]

Not true a private insurer will allow you to pay your own claim.

Sure they might. But they do care about the fact that you were in an accident - they don't care who paid the claim and if that accident puts you into a higher risk catagory your rates go up even if you pay the claim yourself. I remember that private auto insurance form I filled out it. It asked how many at fault accidents I had - not how many insurance claims I made.

[Alta4ever]

Sure they might. But they do care about the fact that you were in an accident - they don't care who paid the claim and if that accident puts you into a higher risk catagory your rates go up even if you pay the claim yourself. I remember that private auto insurance form I filled out it. It asked how many at fault accidents I had - not how many insurance claims I made.

Again this is untrue, if the insurance company has to expend resources on a reported claim then they report it to your insurance insurance history and it will go up. If you pay the claim yourself and their is no bodily injury claim you rates will not increase.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Alta4ever

[Riverwind]

Again this is untrue, if the insurance company has to expend resources on a reported claim then they report it to your insurance insurance history and it will go up. If you pay the claim yourself and their is no bodily injury claim you rates will not increase.

I know of people which faced rate increases when the insurance company found out about accidents that they did not have to pay for. Contrary to your claims the insurance company does care about anything that affects the risk profile used to determine your rates. That is why private insurance companies are such a pain to deal with: their secret, arbitrary and constantly changing methods to determine risk subject the consumer to arbitrary rate increases.

[lily]

The thing that I don't like about the concept is the same company represents both parties so there is no need for them to act for you in the event of disputed liability. I'm not saying they go out of the way to do it but financially they are better off if they can split the blame so they have an excuse to raise the premiums of both parities.

How often is the blame split though? Last time I saw stats for that showed the opposite.

I've been involved in a few accidents - none of which I was at fault - and the only one where there was an issue was the one where I was rear-ended by a cop. Everyone from the witnesses to the accident investigator on the scene agreed I wasn't at all to blame.

Unfortunately it dragged on because the RCMP have Crown insurance and they didn't want to have to pay. In the end, I agreed to accept 25% liability, but only because that wouldn't affect my safe driving discount.

I'd far rather deal with a single company. I'm a little too young to remember the days before ICBC, but I do recall hearing the complaints about dealing with multiple insurance companies.

Also consider. Have you ever been hospitalized inthe US, and had to deal with the fights between various insurance... through work, travel insurance and regular medical? Everyone wants the other guy to pay first, and it can take YEARS to settle.

[Wilber]

How often is the blame split though? Last time I saw stats for that showed the opposite.

I've been involved in a few accidents - none of which I was at fault - and the only one where there was an issue was the one where I was rear-ended by a cop. Everyone from the witnesses to the accident investigator on the scene agreed I wasn't at all to blame.

Unfortunately it dragged on because the RCMP have Crown insurance and they didn't want to have to pay. In the end, I agreed to accept 25% liability, but only because that wouldn't affect my safe driving discount.

I'd far rather deal with a single company. I'm a little too young to remember the days before ICBC, but I do recall hearing the complaints about dealing with multiple insurance companies.

Also consider. Have you ever been hospitalized inthe US, and had to deal with the fights between various insurance... through work, travel insurance and regular medical? Everyone wants the other guy to pay first, and it can take YEARS to settle.

The police don't have insurance. Crown insurance means the taxpayer. It would cost so much to buy insurance that they believe it is cheaper in the long run for the government to accept liability. A big reason why they are so reluctant to accept blame.

My wife was clipped in an intersection a few years ago by someone running a light. It was just a glancing blow and not serious but ICBC was going to assign part of the blame to her. Luckily a witness stopped and gave her their name and address forcing the insurance company to change its mind.

I was involved in three fender benders during my misspent youth before ICBC. Two in BC and one in Alberta. Two were my fault and one wasn't. In all cases the blame went 100% one way as it should have. Mind you, no one was hurt so the claims weren't large. Touch wood, I haven't had to test the present system.

I've known several people who have had long and drawn out fights over claims with ICBC. Nothing like having to sue your own insurance company.

One thing that irks me about ICBC is that they only ever drop rates on optional insurance where they have competition, never the compulsory liability where they have a monopoly. I also think it is time they changed their name to The Mother of All Things Automotive. They started out as a government insurance company but over the years government has made them the whole motor vehicle branch, in charge of licensing and everything else to do with vehicles. I believe this is a bad thing because they determine the rules under which they will operate.

As far as the US goes, it is because of a legal system that allows such things to happen. You can always go to a no fault system which is essentially what ICBC is because they have a monopoly on basic liability. My 90 year old dad had both a stroke and a broken hip on two different trips to the US. In both cases his insurance company was great, including flying him home on an air ambulance when he broke his hip. I can't believe they keep insuring him. I guess there are insurance companies and then there are insurance companies.

[lily]

The police don't have insurance. Crown insurance means the taxpayer. It would cost so much to buy insurance that they believe it is cheaper in the long run for the government to accept liability. A big reason why they are so reluctant to accept blame.

It probably is cheaper.

I was told when I had my accident that the RCMP were insured by the Crown. It may mean "no insurance at all", or it may be a different insurance, because the RCMP isn't provincial, while ICBC is. I don't know. I actually don't believe you though.

My wife was clipped in an intersection a few years ago by someone running a light. It was just a glancing blow and not serious but ICBC was going to assign part of the blame to her. Luckily a witness stopped and gave her their name and address forcing the insurance company to change its mind.

I got rear-ended while stopped at a light. When I made mty claim, ICBC told me they'd have to talk to the guy in front of me before they could settle the claim - they wanted to know if he'd felt 2 impacts or just one (to determine if they were dealing with a single incident or two) Once he filed, all I had to do was pick up my cheque (the car was written off) I didn't have to fight them for anything.

I was involved in three fender benders during my misspent youth before ICBC. Two in BC and one in Alberta. Two were my fault and one wasn't. In all cases the blame went 100% one way as it should have. Mind you, no one was hurt so the claims weren't large. Touch wood, I haven't had to test the present system.

From what I understand, most accidents are found to be 100% to one driver.

I've known several people who have had long and drawn out fights over claims with ICBC. Nothing like having to sue your own insurance company.

When I had the accident with the cop, ICBC gave me the royal run-around. The adjuster gave me all sorts of stories... which he back-tracked pretty quick when I took my Dad in with me.

One thing that irks me about ICBC is that they only ever drop rates on optional insurance where they have competition, never the compulsory liability where they have a monopoly. I also think it is time they changed their name to The Mother of All Things Automotive. They started out as a government insurance company but over the years government has made them the whole motor vehicle branch, in charge of licensing and everything else to do with vehicles. I believe this is a bad thing because they determine the rules under which they will operate.

I do agree with you on the monopoly thing... it's the same with phone service and banking and several other things. I don't know if I want it opened up to competition though - that just creates a different set of headaches.

[Wilber]

I was told when I had my accident that the RCMP were insured by the Crown. It may mean "no insurance at all", or it may be a different insurance, because the RCMP isn't provincial, while ICBC is. I don't know. I actually don't believe you though.

You are the Crown.

[lily]

You are the Crown.

I really like the sound of that.

[Wilber]

I really like the sound of that.

Got a nice ring to it but the pay sucks.

[Wilber]

"We are continuing to see a decline in the number and total cost of injury claims, and for that we thank our customers for driving safely," said Jon Schubert, ICBC's President and CEO. "We continue to manage our business well during these tough times which has put us in a healthy financial position to keep basic rates unchanged overall and to reduce optional rates for 2009 by an average of three percent, effective October 1, 2009."

This is what gets me about ICBC, they never reduce rates on compulsory insurance where they have a monopoly, only on optional insurance where they have competition.