Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Major Change to ICBC- No Fault Insurance Coming


DonLever

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Squamfan said:

 

But we will still have this beauty

 

 70986096_6138051536359_7008806832256843776_n.png.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ohc=X1zAlUwhW88AX_mx5Zn&_nc_ht=scontent.fcxh2-1.fna&oh=fe4c4c6ae09852bad96b605926076a58&oe=5EB6312D

Oh, if only there was no fault divorce out there as well. Nothing like tossing some lawyers into the most emotional part of someone's life. Make sure the kids are pawns in the game. Marriage is the worst contract anyone (that earns money that is) can ever sign.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to be skeptical but in my life time as soon as the government gets their hands on things they seem to go to S@!T in a hurry.

 

It was the Liberal government that took money out of the crown corporation in the first place and left B.C. tax payers once again holding the bag .But like I said I don't want to be skeptical even though I am not holding my breath to see any sort of lower premiums.

 

They have a monopoly on our freedom to drive and we should have a much better system,also have you noticed how many ALBERTA PLATES ARE ON TRUCKS,just saying.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, higgyfan said:

My nephew was hit by a drunk driver a few years ago and his lawyer (a friend of the family):sadno: took 45% of his compensation.  He will have to spend the rest of his life with a debilitating head injury.

 

I can't see things getting any worse than this kind of situation.  It took years to finalize the settlement and the $ received (due to said lawyer's greediness) will not be enough to last 20 yrs, let alone a 'life time'.

Dealing with an ICBC claim from getting rear ended.  Mine is 25%...he got ripped off at 45%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gnarcore said:

Dealing with an ICBC claim from getting rear ended.  Mine is 25%...he got ripped off at 45%

 

You better start asking questions, you may think the lawyer is only taking 25% from the pain and suffering payout but most will actually take 25% from the entire settlement amount. Dealing with ICBC is tough enough, having a lawyer pocketing what is rightfully yours when all they do is send in a Notice of Civil Claim is worse. Don't get charmed or sweet talked into it, trust me they know what they're doing and their best interest is not you. Just trying to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Specz said:

You better start asking questions, you may think the lawyer is only taking 25% from the pain and suffering payout but most will actually take 25% from the entire settlement amount. Dealing with ICBC is tough enough, having a lawyer pocketing what is rightfully yours when all they do is send in a Notice of Civil Claim is worse. Don't get charmed or sweet talked into it, trust me they know what they're doing and their best interest is not you. Just trying to help.

What is worse....

 

Getting screwed by ICBC your own government... or getting screwed by your own greedy lawyer that rips off his own client.....

 

Can't win in this province.  We are bait fish and  and the BC gov and BC lawyers are deceitful sharks....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

Can't win in this province.  We are bait fish and  and the BC gov and BC lawyers are deceitful sharks....

 

One thing to keep in mind is that we aren't the only province that will have no fault. 

 

Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and Quebec all have no fault systems or elements as well. Some are full no fault like Quebec and others just have a few elements of no fault. Saskatchewan is kinda unique and  has the choice between a no fault or tort system.

 

BC, Alberta and New Foundland all have tort systems (as of this post). 

 

Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec also have government insurers for Auto Insurance. Quebec by far has the best system in Canada and they are also government run BUT they have a no fault system. If you don't understand what this all means to you, look at this chart.

 

 

image.png.79cd95bb2dd802ecb344f5fd46b59960.png

 

 

You see what happens when you have a full no fault system? The provinces with a full no fault system like Quebec have lower rates compared to provinces like BC and Alberta that have Tort systems. If we make our system like Quebec, we can DRAMATICALLY lower our insurance rates. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

So tired of Jas Johal on Global crying like a big baby every time the NDP does something. Especially when his party ransacked ICBC to begin with. 

Ya it doesn't do them any good to sound like the NDP and say stuff like "won't they just think about rates for young people???".

 

Sound like an actually right of centre like me! A good quote would be "Their putting lawyers out of work and firing entire divisions at ICBC! Not a bad start!"

 

Or if you want to be harsh the comment from the Canadian taxpayers federation "Changing the flat tires on a broken car. We will see if rates go down..." (AKA we want privatization, and we will believe what you are saying when we see it" is still an upgrade, and that a hyper partisan one to boot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

What is worse....

 

Getting screwed by ICBC your own government... or getting screwed by your own greedy lawyer that rips off his own client.....

 

Can't win in this province.  We are bait fish and  and the BC gov and BC lawyers are deceitful sharks....

You think the point of insurance is to pay out benefits, or is it to collect premiums?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ronthecivil said:

You think the point of insurance is to pay out benefits, or is it to collect premiums?

That's what concerns me with this move.  It might well be a good idea, but if lawyers are taken out of the picture, are payments also going to go down?

 

Also, will ICBC's policy of spreading the blame around continue.  One time I was rear-ended, they tried to make it 50-50 fault :picard:

 

Of course they want premiums, the baystages!! (Johnny Dangerously reference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well someone please think of the lawyers?

 

 

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/reaction-to-icbc-changes

 

Quote

B.C. lawyers promise to consider whether to challenge no-fault plans

"Their solution is to create a much bigger fire in a much bigger ICBC dumpster," says president of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C.

Updated: February 6, 2020
icbc-claim-centre.jpg?quality=80&strip=a

BURNABY October 24 2019. The ICBC Claim Centre at 4399 Wayburne, Burnaby, October 24 2019. Gerry Kahrmann / PNG staff photo) 00059159A [PNG Merlin Archive] GERRY KAHRMANN / PNG

Groups affected by the Insurance Corp. of B.C.’s move to a no-fault system say they’ll be scrutinizing the change closely following the government’s surprise announcement.

John Rice, president of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C., said he was “deeply disappointed” by the move. The association will be investigating whether the proposed reforms should be challenged in court.

“You’ll remember that just in the spring of last year this government introduced sweeping legislative changes that contemplated the concept of a cap on what the government promised would only be minor injuries,” he said.

“But in fact, that cap included brain injuries, depression, PTSD, chronic pain … really serious stuff. And only nine months into this new law, government is effectively announcing that the policy scheme that they have pursued for the last two years has failed.”

RELATED

Rice said the government changed the policy out of the public eye, so the legal community was in the dark when it made its announcement Thursday. His association is now looking closely at the proposed reforms and considering its next steps.

“If the government and the attorney general of British Columbia have passed a law that in the view of constitutional law experts is unconstitutional, then it’s the mandate of the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia — its mission — to protect the rights of British Columbians against anyone, including our own government,” Rice said.

However, several provinces already have no-fault insurance.

Rice said successive failures by government have meant that it has taken the once-profitable “crown jewel of public auto insurance in North America” and put it in crisis.

“Their solution is to create a much bigger fire in a much bigger ICBC dumpster,” he said.

Justina Loh, executive director of Disability Alliance B.C., said her organization is hopeful about the reforms and will be consulting with ICBC to make sure its regulations and policies don’t prevent people from getting the benefits they need.

Loh said the alliance wants to see a streamlined, efficient system so that support is not delayed.

“At the end of the day, we just care about the well-being of everyone, people who’ve suffered any type of injury for motor vehicle accidents, if they’re pedestrians, cyclists, anything like that,” she said.

“We just want to make sure they’re able to get all the support that they need, so not just physical support for OT (occupational therapy) or PT (physical therapy), but if they need support for housing, for transportation. There’s so many expenses that you can incur from either a catastrophic accident or some type of motor vehicle accident.”

Aaron Sutherland, vice-president for the Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Pacific region, said that just because a province chooses a no-fault system, it doesn’t mean drivers shouldn’t have a choice in who insures them.

“Whether it’s a tort system like today or a no-fault system that government has announced, the big thing to make sure that rates are affordable as they can be is to make sure drivers have a choice,” he said.

Sutherland pointed to Quebec’s hybrid coverage method, where a mandatory public insurance plan covers bodily injury, and in some cases physical damage, such as hit-and-run, while all other coverage, including property damage, is purchased from private insurers.

The average insurance premium there is just $717, he said.

“We currently pay more for auto insurance than anyone else in the country and while it’s great to hear projections that rates are going to be coming down, I think we have to wait to see what ultimately happens,” Sutherland said.

“I think just last year government introduced a whole bunch of other reforms that were supposed to improve rates. And, of course, that didn’t happen.”

With files from Rob Shaw

neagland@postmedia.com

twitter.com/nickeagland

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kragar said:

That's what concerns me with this move.  It might well be a good idea, but if lawyers are taken out of the picture, are payments also going to go down?

 

Also, will ICBC's policy of spreading the blame around continue.  One time I was rear-ended, they tried to make it 50-50 fault :picard:

 

Of course they want premiums, the baystages!! (Johnny Dangerously reference)

Seems like they already have. In 2010, they gave me 3k for my Honda CRX. In the last summer they gave me 3350 for my Honda Prelude. So they gave me an extra $350 dollars for a car with 70,000 less KM and that was several years younger. They're only reimbursing for 75% of the asssessed value now where they couldn't have been doing this in 2010 because there is no way in hell I would have received 3k otherwise. Then the whole 'pain and suffering' payout was less also this time.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kragar said:

That's what concerns me with this move.  It might well be a good idea, but if lawyers are taken out of the picture, are payments also going to go down?

 

Also, will ICBC's policy of spreading the blame around continue.  One time I was rear-ended, they tried to make it 50-50 fault :picard:

 

Of course they want premiums, the baystages!! (Johnny Dangerously reference)

They are getting rid of the portion of ICBC that chases and puts blame etc. on the at fault driver. Again still shocked about the amount of layoffs at ICBC (in a good way) that will happen.

 

Saw Eby on the news this morning. I am no fan of the NDP but it looks like they are getting this right.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronthecivil said:

They are getting rid of the portion of ICBC that chases and puts blame etc. on the at fault driver. Again still shocked about the amount of layoffs at ICBC (in a good way) that will happen.

 

Saw Eby on the news this morning. I am no fan of the NDP but it looks like they are getting this right.

SK has had no fault for years, and much lower premiums. I don't think we'll see the second part of that, but the Liberals did such a bad job with ICBC I don't see any other option really. You can always top up with extra private coverage if you really want to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting article explaining how David Eby (a person who was previously a critic of no fault) ended up deciding to go no fault. 

I really like the fact that Eby is open minded and admits he was wrong earlier (something that more politicians need to do). 

 

Quote

From no-fault hater to no-fault lover: The inside story on David Eby's decision to revamp ICBC

 

VICTORIA — Attorney General David Eby’s conversion from an outspoken opponent of no-fault insurance to architect and lead champion of B.C.’s new no-fault system came slowly, over 14 months.

 

It took an admission to himself that he’d misjudged the ferocity of the fight against reforms by personal injury lawyers, horror stories about how the existing system still fails customers, the help of top officials from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the warnings of massive rate hikes in the next few years even though his contentious previous reforms were successful.

 

“I had too much confidence that the legal system could change more quickly than it actually can,” Eby told Postmedia News. “And I had an inadequate understanding at the time how concerned British Columbia were about their car insurance rates.

 

“I also had an inadequate understanding of how poorly the existing system supports people who have been in accidents.”

 

Eby has been quietly working to develop no-fault auto insurance in B.C. since November 2018, after being convinced only dramatic reform could keep premiums from soaring.

 

The attorney general convened a group of deputy ministers in late 2018. They began to investigate the policy merits of no-fault insurance. Such a system bans most lawsuits, which would save ICBC billions in legal fees. Earnest discussions began in spring 2019. Top officials from Manitoba and Saskatchewan were brought on board to help.

 

The journey culminated with a series of cabinet meetings on no-fault that started last summer and continued until December, when Premier John Horgan finally gave the green light to proceed.

 

Eby said he knew the system was unsustainable as far back as November 2018, when the Insurance Corp. of B.C. told him that his new cap on pain and suffering costs for minor auto injuries was on track to save $1 billion annually — yet wasn’t enough to halt a projected 36 per cent rate increase over the next five years.

 

“It’s not what people were asking for,” he said. “They were not saying do your best to keep rates around four per cent. They were saying where we are is too expensive for us. And reducing the benefits, I didn’t see as a very credible option.”

 

The NDP government was already feeling heat from motorists unhappy their premiums kept rising despite reforms at ICBC. A rate redesign in September 2018 meant the bill for inexperienced drivers jumped and in some cases exceeded the cost of university tuition.

The prospect of complex reforms, unpopular rate increases and facing more years of “chasing down additional savings” just to barely keep ICBC’s finances in the black was, Eby says, simply untenable.

 

As well, it became apparent that legal challenges by personal injury lawyers to ICBC reforms, and an advertising campaign that targeted Eby specifically, were shaping up to be protracted battles.

 

“It was a street fight with many former colleagues in law, and some people I would even say friends in law, that fought every reform tooth and nail as hard as they could,” said Eby. “And I realized that it would be three- to five-year process to get to where we needed.”

 

Around the same time, a Vancouver woman wrote Eby a letter saying her car insurance bill had risen to $1,900 a year and she was struggling to afford to keep her home.

 

“I have nowhere else to go for insurance,” she wrote. “How is someone like me who lives in B.C. supposed to live?”

 

Eby wrote back that her insurance, while pricey, was still a pretty good deal. But he said it began to gnaw at him that his claim was wrong, because even her high rate was not buying her enough insurance to adequately cover her for a crash.

 

I kept the letter on my desk,” Eby said. “It was a reminder I needed to do better.”

 

He also met a woman who had hit a moose with her vehicle and ended up quadriplegic. She had struggled to survive under ICBC’s old maximum of $150,000 in maximum medical costs. Eby said he learned even the new $300,000 level he’d set in 2019 was “totally inadequate” for her.

 

Eby said he realized the woman’s situation would have been dramatically better under a no-fault system where care could have continued through regular payments the rest of her life, instead of a one-time court settlement.

 

As he inched closer to no-fault, Eby had a problem. He’d already publicly ruled out no-fault insurance in 2017.

“If you roll into ICBC and say the problem is the lawyers, you are cutting off the one avenue people have had to get the rehabilitation and support that they need,” he told Postmedia News at the time. “So that’s why no-fault is really off the table for me.”

Or as he put it simply in another interview: “We’re not doing no-fault.”

 

Today, Eby admits he was wrong.

A key argument he raised three years ago — often repeated by critics of no-fault — was that ICBC had been so aggressive in fighting to reduce claims costs. So removing people’s ability to sue would take away the last weapon they had against a corporation that treated them poorly.

 

That’s still a concern, even as ICBC shifts to no-fault, Eby said. The only solution is a “significant cultural change” within ICBC, he said. No-fault would free the corporation from the “hypocritical position” where it has to rehabilitate injured drivers on one hand, and then on the other hand represent the at-fault driver in court to argue the victims aren’t really as injured as they claim.

“It means they can’t do either well,” said Eby. “People don’t understand what their job is. And it’s easy for someone to conflate denying benefits as doing what’s best for the corporation.”

 

The group of deputy ministers also took a hard look at either full and partial privatization of ICBC, which the Opposition B.C. Liberals have advocated. They also looked at Alberta’s model, which is a private system with partial payout caps set by government.

“The answer to that was no, and not only would it increase rates for everybody under 35 by about 17 per cent, but it would result in … us having to somehow absorb the existing liabilities at ICBC as well,” said Eby.

 

“So you’re talking about increased rates, as well as a hit to the government’s bottom line, and the same level of benefits currently.”

Last March, Eby heard the CEOs of the public auto insurers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan were visiting B.C. for an industry event. He asked to meet them.

Both provinces have no-fault insurance and less pressure on rates than B.C. Manitoba has applied this year for a one per cent rate drop. Saskatchewan, which has a hybrid system with an opt-out choice, hasn’t had a rate increase in five years.

When Eby sat down with the CEOs, he’d just announced that ICBC needed a 6.3 per cent rate increase in 2019.

“If I could describe their attitude towards B.C., it was like they felt sorry for us,” said Eby. “We seem to have the worst of two systems — a full tort system with the political accountability of a public auto insurer.”

Both Manitoba and Saskatchewan offered to help ICBC compile actuarial data on how, based on their experience, no-fault could produce savings in B.C. What followed was months of quiet work among the three provinces that produced a B.C. system that mirrors Manitoba’s structure, but with Saskatchewan’s higher benefits.

 

Eby said matters worsened in mid-2019 when the government’s attempt to limit the number of expert reports was challenged by the Trial Lawyers Association. ICBC saw $400 million in savings evaporate when a court sided with the lawyers.

Eby said he was also appalled by the case of an ICBC victim who received a $127,362 settlement but only took home $22,874 once legal costs were subtracted, including $9,000 in photocopy fees, as outlined in an column by Mike Smyth in The Province.

 

In that case, the law firm also lent the client money at 10 per cent interest to cover up-front legal costs it would later recovery directly from the settlement.

“So the person was paying interest essentially on their own money,” said Eby. “It just felt like one more excess that the system had had become completely disconnected from looking after the person that it was supposed to.”

He fired a warning shot to trial lawyers in October 2019: “In going after these reforms, they should be careful what they wish for, because there won’t be many options left for government after that.”

By then, Eby knew no-fault was coming.

“I had decided,” he said. “But I was still in the process of convincing my colleagues.”

Cabinet made the decision in December to proceed.

It was, Eby admits, “a long discussion.”

Now comes selling that decision to the public.

https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/from-no-fault-hater-to-no-fault-lover-the-inside-story-on-david-ebys-decision-to-revamp-icbc

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2020 at 4:15 PM, coastal.view said:

it is a logical conclusion

if the system is no fault

fault does not determine which policy gets dinged

they both do

as they were both involved in the accident

why would you think anything else ??

 

that is how no fault works in other jurisidictions

I don't think it is logical at all. In fact, I think that's a misunderstanding of what no fault insurance is. No fault means that regardless of fault, both parties are entitled to benefits through their insurer. It would be illogical for a driver to be dinged for getting rear-ended, for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...