Major Change to ICBC- No Fault Insurance Coming

[Seifer86]

On 2/6/2020 at 7:41 PM, redhdlois said:

Depends on how far it goes.....if it goes to trial then its 45

This is incorrect, and any lawyer who charges 45% contingency is in violation of BC Law Society Rules and should be reported. Lawyers are only allowed to charge a maximum of 33.3% on personal injury claims related to a motor vehicle accident, up to and including trial. An appeal requires a separate contract.

 

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/support-and-resources-for-lawyers/act-rules-and-code/law-society-rules/part-8-–-lawyers’-fees/ 

 

A move to no-fault insurance does not eliminate fault in an accident. ICBC will still make that determination. No-fault means you can't sue the at-fault party for damages related to your injury (pain and suffering, wage loss, future care, capacity, in-trust claims etc). How ICBC determines rate increases based on fault is completely up to them. 

 

Make no mistake, the move to this system will save you money, but only if you are never seriously injured in an accident. This is how insurance works, you only want it when you need it. The elimination of legal representation means there are really only 3 parties involved in your accident now, you, ICBC, and your doctors. ICBC has stated that they will work with your doctor to help establish your true losses and compensate you accordingly. I pose the question: does your doctor have the time, expertise, or inclination to deal with an ICBC adjuster on your behalf?

[kingofsurrey]

1 minute ago, Seifer86 said:

This is incorrect, and any lawyer who charges 45% contingency is in violation of BC Law Society Rules and should be reported. Lawyers are only allowed to charge a maximum of 33.3% on personal injury claims related to a motor vehicle accident, up to and including trial. An appeal requires a separate contract.

 

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/support-and-resources-for-lawyers/act-rules-and-code/law-society-rules/part-8-–-lawyers’-fees/ 

 

A move to no-fault insurance does not eliminate fault in an accident. ICBC will still make that determination. No-fault means you can't sue the at-fault party for damages related to your injury (pain and suffering, wage loss, future care, capacity, in-trust claims etc). How ICBC determines rate increases based on fault is completely up to them. 

 

Make no mistake, the move to this system will save you money, but only if you are never seriously injured in an accident. This is how insurance works, you only want it when you need it. The elimination of legal representation means there are really only 3 parties involved in your accident now, you, ICBC, and your doctors. ICBC has stated that they will work with your doctor to help establish your true losses and compensate you accordingly. I pose the question: does your doctor have the time, expertise, or inclination to deal with an ICBC adjuster on your behalf?

I agree that is is less premiums for less insurance .....  

 

Will it be worth it. ?  I think most people will come out ahead... and  some will not.   

 

Overall, i think for the majority of BCers... it will be a win. 

[Tortorella's Rant]

Major changes alright. They &^@#ed me out of another $400.

"You have a perfect record and with all of your benefits.. pay me $2200 please."

Almost walked out of there. 

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

Major changes alright. They &^@#ed me out of another $400.

"You have a perfect record and with all of your benefits.. pay me $2200 please."

Almost walked out of there. 

You're aware that the 'major changes' haven't come in to effect yet, right?

 

In fact, spiraling cost increases (your $400 increase) are one of the major reasons they're suggesting this restructuring.

[taxi]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:48 PM, Seifer86 said:

This is incorrect, and any lawyer who charges 45% contingency is in violation of BC Law Society Rules and should be reported. Lawyers are only allowed to charge a maximum of 33.3% on personal injury claims related to a motor vehicle accident, up to and including trial. An appeal requires a separate contract.

 

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/support-and-resources-for-lawyers/act-rules-and-code/law-society-rules/part-8-–-lawyers’-fees/ 

 

A move to no-fault insurance does not eliminate fault in an accident. ICBC will still make that determination. No-fault means you can't sue the at-fault party for damages related to your injury (pain and suffering, wage loss, future care, capacity, in-trust claims etc). How ICBC determines rate increases based on fault is completely up to them. 

 

Make no mistake, the move to this system will save you money, but only if you are never seriously injured in an accident. This is how insurance works, you only want it when you need it. The elimination of legal representation means there are really only 3 parties involved in your accident now, you, ICBC, and your doctors. ICBC has stated that they will work with your doctor to help establish your true losses and compensate you accordingly. I pose the question: does your doctor have the time, expertise, or inclination to deal with an ICBC adjuster on your behalf?

I'm a lawyer, who does ICBC injury work. Some lawyers will get around the 33 1/3% rule by charging interest on disbursements. Technically not a legal fee, but charged to the client out of their settlement. No lawyer can outright state they are charging more than 33 1/3% for a motor vehicle PI claim, pursuant to law society rules. 

 

While, I do agree that some people were scamming the system, this is definitely a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I've seen the way that WCB treats people in BC, and it is definitely not good. As for you point about doctors, another thing I've noticed is that no matter how good they are, they are human, and tend to get influenced by the person paying the bills. The average person will not be able to afford their own independent medical assessment. They'll be at the mercy of whatever doctors ICBC hires. 

 

Also, for other posters who've mentioned it, Saskatchewan does not have strict no fault system. They have an opt in/out system, where people can choose to pay extra insurance for injury coverage. 

[kingofsurrey]

I love how Horgan the magician is going to pull a rabbit out of the habit right at the next BC election.

 

Just before you vote....   each BC driver will get a ICBC rebate cheque arriving at the home.......   courtesy of the NDP gov......

 

BC politics is such a scam.....

[Russ]

On 2/13/2020 at 1:24 PM, aGENT said:

You're aware that the 'major changes' haven't come in to effect yet, right?

 

In fact, spiraling cost increases (your $400 increase) are one of the major reasons they're suggesting this restructuring.

I think he means for the last change of ICBC they did in the fall (I think thats when it was).  I know mine went up since I am younger, my parents went down after the change.  They just bought a brand new car and their insurance with identical coverage is $100/month less than mine (mind you the driving for work vs retired part probably changed that a bit too as did the changing of discounts)

[Russ]

34 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I love how Horgan the magician is going to pull a rabbit out of the habit right at the next BC election.

 

Just before you vote....   each BC driver will get a ICBC rebate cheque arriving at the home.......   courtesy of the NDP gov......

 

BC politics is such a scam.....

Every election the party in power does that.  Extra cheques, suddenly a flood of investment in short term jobs to boost job rate, etc. Ferderal politics do it also just like provincial, all politics are a bloody scam.

[Grapefruits]

So my Mother who is 71 this year went to renew her insurance.  Had a 43% discount as of last year.  She had odometer checked last year as well for the low KM discount.  Turns out she drove under 800 KM's last year.  From what I read that equals a 10% discount.  Kept her insurance the same.  It went up $72 bucks. 

 

My Mother has never been in an accident.  Makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

[Tystick]

9 minutes ago, Grapefruits said:

So my Mother who is 71 this year went to renew her insurance.  Had a 43% discount as of last year.  She had odometer checked last year as well for the low KM discount.  Turns out she drove under 800 KM's last year.  From what I read that equals a 10% discount.  Kept her insurance the same.  It went up $72 bucks. 

 

My Mother has never been in an accident.  Makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

They changed to some point system rather than how it was discounted.

My insurance went from $130 to $170/month... Absolutely brutal.

[Alflives]

15 minutes ago, Grapefruits said:

So my Mother who is 71 this year went to renew her insurance.  Had a 43% discount as of last year.  She had odometer checked last year as well for the low KM discount.  Turns out she drove under 800 KM's last year.  From what I read that equals a 10% discount.  Kept her insurance the same.  It went up $72 bucks. 

 

My Mother has never been in an accident.  Makes absolutely no sense.

 

 

I don’t drive anymore so don’t get insurance.  But my wife still does.  Same as your mom.  Older, never had a ticket, let alone an accident.  Insurance was quoted with ICBC at over 2000 dollars.  Went private for all we could, and saved almost 1000 bucks.

ICBC is a bloated bureaucracy, and because it’s a socialist system those who are good drivers subsidize those who don’t.  

[Tystick]

Not sure this will actually fix ICBC, but if the system can be improved I'm all for it.

BC has the most most expensive car insurance in Canada.

[Seifer86]

21 hours ago, taxi said:

I'm a lawyer, who does ICBC injury work. Some lawyers will get around the 33 1/3% rule by charging interest on disbursements. Technically not a legal fee, but charged to the client out of their settlement. No lawyer can outright state they are charging more than 33 1/3% for a motor vehicle PI claim, pursuant to law society rules. 

 

While, I do agree that some people were scamming the system, this is definitely a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I've seen the way that WCB treats people in BC, and it is definitely not good. As for you point about doctors, another thing I've noticed is that no matter how good they are, they are human, and tend to get influenced by the person paying the bills. The average person will not be able to afford their own independent medical assessment. They'll be at the mercy of whatever doctors ICBC hires. 

 

Also, for other posters who've mentioned it, Saskatchewan does not have strict no fault system. They have an opt in/out system, where people can choose to pay extra insurance for injury coverage. 

Good point on the interest charges for disbursements, though I'd say that disbursements generally stay quite low in the first 2 or 3 years of a claim, so the total charged to the client out of settlement is not often a shocking amount, unless the rate is ridiculous. My experience is somewhat limited to the policies at my firm, but I can see how this could be abused.

 

I completely agree with your middle paragraph. 

[Tortorella's Rant]

ICBC in a nut shell. 

 

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

ICBC in a nut shell. 

 

These types of socialist monopolies are how governments steal money from those whom they’re supposed to be serving.  And ya any socialist system bloats with bureaucracy and eats our dollars.  

[Warhippy]

Remember when ICBC was not a revenue generating crown corp and we didn't have these issues?

 

Sigh

 

I remember

[taxi]

6 hours ago, Seifer86 said:

Good point on the interest charges for disbursements, though I'd say that disbursements generally stay quite low in the first 2 or 3 years of a claim, so the total charged to the client out of settlement is not often a shocking amount, unless the rate is ridiculous. My experience is somewhat limited to the policies at my firm, but I can see how this could be abused.

 

I completely agree with your middle paragraph. 

I've seen firms who just order physiatry reports at the two year mark to "keep updated on the file". Interest on that $8k starts to run.

 

Greed and management brought the system down. Lawyers, doctors and treatment providers gauging, icbc mismanagement, the liberals taking billions out, the NDP bending to the icbc union, claimants exaggerating claims... All of it adds up.

[coastal.view]

11 hours ago, taxi said:

I've seen firms who just order physiatry reports at the two year mark to "keep updated on the file". Interest on that $8k starts to run.

 

Greed and management brought the system down. Lawyers, doctors and treatment providers gauging, icbc mismanagement, the liberals taking billions out, the NDP bending to the icbc union, claimants exaggerating claims... All of it adds up.

so the solution is ?

 

no fault

which means either no one is at fault for any accident and premiums never go up

or ... more likely

no fault means 1 side is not assessed for fault

and premium of each and every driver involved in an accident gets dinged and goes up

that is why premiums can start off low now and everyone feels like they are getting a deal

as there will be twice as many premiums impacted by accidents under this system

 

no fault also means

that pain and suffering compensation is removed

awards are capped

you do not get full wage lose, but wage loss akin to the wcb system

the whole thing is "administered"

not much give and take, no real room for lawyers or advocates

you are on your own to deal with this event

and if you are a true victim (injured)

you bear this injury cost as a cost of living in a complex society

and your premium goes up

if you are hit by others 5x (really not your fault) and injured

you bear all of those social costs

and your premium also goes up 5x

 

if i hit in you in or with a car by accident

you are under this limited system

 

and you get what you pay for

if you are paying less, i promise you are getting much less

 

if i knock you down by accident on the street (no car involved)

or in a store

or if you slip and fall in a store

you have your full rights still

Edited February 20, 2020 by coastal.view

[taxi]

12 hours ago, coastal.view said:

so the solution is ?

 

no fault

which means either no one is at fault for any accident and premiums never go up

or ... more likely

no fault means 1 side is not assessed for fault

and premium of each and every driver involved in an accident gets dinged and goes up

that is why premiums can start off low now and everyone feels like they are getting a deal

as there will be twice as many premiums impacted by accidents under this system

 

no fault also means

that pain and suffering compensation is removed

awards are capped

you do not get full wage lose, but wage loss akin to the wcb system

the whole thing is "administered"

not much give and take, no real room for lawyers or advocates

you are on your own to deal with this event

and if you are a true victim (injured)

you bear this injury cost as a cost of living in a complex society

and your premium goes up

if you are hit by others 5x (really not your fault) and injured

you bear all of those social costs

and your premium also goes up 5x

 

if i hit in you in or with a car by accident

you are under this limited system

 

and you get what you pay for

if you are paying less, i promise you are getting much less

 

if i knock you down by accident on the street (no car involved)

or in a store

or if you slip and fall in a store

you have your full rights still

The solution would be to just actually make things more efficient, which could be accomplished a number of ways, including through privatization. 

 

No fault is going to be awful for anyone who's actually injured. Once again, try taking to someone who's dealt with the wcb system.

[Grapefruits]

On 2/18/2020 at 7:08 PM, Tystick said:

They changed to some point system rather than how it was discounted.

My insurance went from $130 to $170/month... Absolutely brutal.

i know they changed the system but it doesn't make any sense. It was supposed to punish bad drivers and reward the good ones.  That doesn't seem to be happening.