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

Major Change to ICBC- No Fault Insurance Coming


DonLever

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Darius said:

something is not adding up here...

 

20 percent decrease in premiums

more payouts

shorter wait times

no lawyer required

 

wheres the catch?  too many positives

They're going to be giving the plebs a few bones here and there now that there is a budget coming which may trigger an election is my guess.  If this was at the beginning of their term there's NO WAY they'd be doing this. 

 

Seems like they could've saved a lot of people the 20% rate by simply stopping their policy of automatically assigning fault to both parties (even when one party was clearly not to blame) in any accident case which typically ended up in an increased rate for both parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darius said:

something is not adding up here...

 

20 percent decrease in premiums

more payouts

shorter wait times

no lawyer required

 

wheres the catch?  too many positives

They're going to be giving the plebs a few bones here and there now that there is a budget coming which may trigger an election is my guess.  If this was at the beginning of their term there's NO WAY they'd be doing this. 

 

Seems like they could've saved a lot of people the 20% rate by simply stopping their policy of automatically assigning fault to both parties (even when one party was clearly not to blame) in any accident case which typically ended up in an increased rate for both parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

One of the biggest things ICBC needs to do is remove the insurance of luxury vehicles.  Any vehicle not designated as a fleet/work vehicle over $100,000 should have to be insured by a private company.

 

I think this is a good start myself, but really the most simple thing would be to repeal all changes and go back to what ICBC was prior to 2003 when the BC Liberals and Campbell changed the rules.  When ICBC generated zero profit and little debt and literally just insured cars end of story

Luxury vehicle insurance is like $20,000 and you only get a few thousand kms a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is wondering if this is good news or bad news, I'll tell you as I'm working in the insurance industry. 

 

This is GREAT news. 

 

For years, all of us at the office have been talking about ways ICBC can save money and lower rates and this is always what got brought up. 

 

This will mean lots of saving for us in the future and beyond. Instead of your hard earned money going to lawyers, it will now stay with you. However, last time they tried to do this, there was lots of push back from the lawyers, so the lawyers launched a campaign that sowed fear into the public about no fault and made the public outraged with the decision and the government at the time changed their mind because of the public outrage. Let's hope that doesn't happen again. 

 

The next thing ICBC needs to do to save us money is somehow, make sure the body shops and repair shops can't scam ICBC when they are trying to fix your car. Right now the body shops ask how much insurance the person has and just charge as much as they can to ICBC so they can make more money. David Eby has introduced measures to try and fix this (It was to have "trusted" repair shops) but I still think they need to do more to solve that problem. 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

As long as compensations for injury is fair, it's hard to take it as anything but positive.  That's a crucial "as long as" though.

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'.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Violator said:

Well see how things turn out i have heard of some crazy settlements people have gotten over the years.

Wasn't there some stats that many of the individuals suing to get those settlements were also tied to criminal activities or something?  Or maybe just those committing fraud, theft, etc... just happened to be the same ones suing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes 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'.

The problem is, ICBC tends to be very sleazy. Without pressure from a lawyer or someone who knows how to deal with them, they will screw you. The lawyer was a greedy parasite, but how much was ICBC willing to offer without him? Probably less than half of what they eventually settled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

Oh yea, I trust ICBC will be fair and square with the settlements. :mellow:

That's is the downside when you get rid of the lawyers.  ICBC will give a low ball offer; take it or leave situation.

 

So to all those that think no fault insurance is great, just hope you don't get into a serious accident.    You may wish you had a lawyer.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bishopshodan said:

Oh yea, I trust ICBC will be fair and square with the settlements. :mellow:

 

there will be no settlements

everyone will be forced to give up compensation (for pain and suffering) for someone else causing your injury

 

and the unlucky injured person

will get to deal with a worker's comp type system

where your treatment expenses and some wage loss is covered

and where someone else will monitor your recovery

(for those of you who have dealt with wcb i'm sure you'll relish another similar system)

 

the person who caused your injuries is off the hook

as there is not fault

and so you alone get to endure the harm caused to you

 

and oh yeah

since it is no fault

your insurance premium will also be dinged

as you were involved in an accident (fault does not matter)

 

sounds peachy to me

nothing unfair about this new system

just avoid getting hurt and you'll be fine

and if you cause an accident you are better off with this change

Edited by coastal.view
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

 

there will be no settlements

everyone will be forced to give up compensation (for pain and suffering) for someone else causing your injury

 

and the unlucky injured person

will get to deal with a worker's comp type system

where your treatment expenses and some wage loss is covered

and where someone else will monitor your recovery

(for those of you who have dealt with wcb i'm sure you'll relish another similar system)

 

the person who caused your injuries is off the hook

as there is not fault

and so you alone get to endure the harm caused to you

 

and oh yeah

since it is no fault

your insurance premium will also be dinged

as you were involved in an accident (fault does not matter)

 

sounds peachy to me

nothing unfair about this new system

just avoid getting hurt and you'll be fine

and if you cause an accident you are better off with this change

Is there anything to support this assertion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lockout Casualty said:

Is there anything to support this assertion?

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

Edited by coastal.view
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

I heard his ads for a year before I actually saw what he looks like, pretty much exactly who I envisioned minus a tail, pitchfork and a ring of fire.  The seediest looking mofo out there.

 

Image result for zuckerman law group

While we are talking about seedy folk here. Good ol Rich Coleman sold out the province when he was Corrupt Christys Deputy. Guy is rotten to the core.

 

 

64F1988B-996F-4C0A-8F4E-12AAB774C70B.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

 

there will be no settlements

everyone will be forced to give up compensation (for pain and suffering) for someone else causing your injury

 

and the unlucky injured person

will get to deal with a worker's comp type system

where your treatment expenses and some wage loss is covered

and where someone else will monitor your recovery

(for those of you who have dealt with wcb i'm sure you'll relish another similar system)

 

the person who caused your injuries is off the hook

as there is not fault

and so you alone get to endure the harm caused to you

 

and oh yeah

since it is no fault

your insurance premium will also be dinged

as you were involved in an accident (fault does not matter)

 

sounds peachy to me

nothing unfair about this new system

just avoid getting hurt and you'll be fine

and if you cause an accident you are better off with this change

Get third party insurance. Long term disability insurance is a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, SK has had no-fault for a long time. I think it's a pretty good system.

If you're in a crash you have to submit a claim- but they can find that you were not at fault- eg. rear-ended the person who crashed  into the other loses their safe driver discount for insurance. The person who was crashed into doesn't lose any safe driver discount they may have. If no one is clearly at fault I think both lose the safe driver discount. If a person causes multiple crashes in a short period of time they have to pay extra to keep driving.

 

If you're in a crash you have to take it to SGI first then to a body shop- SGI assesses the amount of damage and then if the body shop claims to find more damage they have to get an assessor to come and reevaluate it.

 

I think for injuries it becomes more like WCB

 

Tickets for distracted driving ticket just went up to a base of $580 in SK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

The problem is, ICBC tends to be very sleazy. Without pressure from a lawyer or someone who knows how to deal with them, they will screw you. The lawyer was a greedy parasite, but how much was ICBC willing to offer without him? Probably less than half of what they eventually settled for.

It certainly is right now. By the sounds of it they won't be needing the ICBC lawyers anymore. The payouts will be predetermined based on what a doctor tells them.

 

Could this be resulting in massive layoffs at ICBC!?! Colour me shocked to see the NDP do THAT!!!

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...