ICBC Cuts Rates by 2.4%

[bloodmack]

I think this will be helpful for the companies with fleet policies. Other then that, yeah I can see a price spike in the next few years if 2012 doesn't happen :P

[mowontech]

B.C. needs more competition period.

[dai3yuen]

Originally Posted by taylor192

ICBC is making a very good profit off of us, to the point their "reserve fund" is 270% of what it is required by law

Actually it isn't. Scott Simpson is an idiot and should check his facts before publishing them. You would think that as a 'journalist' it's their job to do that, but I guess not for him. There was reply from the CEO of ICBC a couple of days later in regards to the cash reserves:

http://www.vancouversun.com/ICBC+hea...394/story.html

Originally Posted by taylor192

Quebec is a better example of public system offering cheap premiums. The Quebec public system doesn't seem to have nearly the same overhead as BC and offers substantially lower rates, even when factoring in the $300 plate renewal fee in Quebec.

The difference with Quebec is that they have a 'no-fault' system where you are not allowed to sue for injuries, pain/suffering or 'economic loss'. I'm pretty sure if ICBC were to introduce something like that, we'd all see our insurance rates decline by more than half, but that would piss off too many people who make their money from suing insurance companies (read: lawyers).

This is also partially why Ontario's rates are lower than BC. You can sue for pain/suffering, etc. but there are specific conditions under which you can sue for.

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by dai3yuen

Actually it isn't. Scott Simpson is an idiot and should check his facts before publishing them. You would think that as a 'journalist' it's their job to do that, but I guess not for him. There was reply from the CEO of ICBC a couple of days later in regards to the cash reserves:

http://www.vancouversun.com/ICBC+hea...394/story.html



The difference with Quebec is that they have a 'no-fault' system where you are not allowed to sue for injuries, pain/suffering or 'economic loss'. I'm pretty sure if ICBC were to introduce something like that, we'd all see our insurance rates decline by more than half, but that would piss off too many people who make their money from suing insurance companies (read: lawyers).

This is also partially why Ontario's rates are lower than BC. You can sue for pain/suffering, etc. but there are specific conditions under which you can sue for.

This may be a bit misleading to everyone,

In QC, you purchase private insurance to cover material loses, such as the damage to your car, public property, etc. Bodily injurys and any costs associated with them (pain, suffering, loss of income, medical bills, etc) are covered by the SAAQ.

SAAQ collects premiums from vehicle registrations and driver license renewals, and provides coverage for all QC citizens.

So in the case of QC, no you cannot sue the other driver(s) for any claims related to bodily injuries, you simply claim it with SAAQ, just as you would with ICBC. Now you can sue ICBC/SAAQ if you feel your claim is not being handled fairly.

Wether it's QC or BC, and SAAQ or ICBC, the concept remains the same, to indemnify the insured, and I serverely doubt the costs of doing so on different ends of the country is very different... yet for some reason premiums in BC remain very very high when compared to those of QC... and FRENCH PEOPLE DRIVE JUST AS BAD AS ASIANS.

I am all for transparency, ICBC has been heavily critisized for many years and I believe that a completely impartial third party needs to come in and investigate ICBC for unethical conduct.

At the end of the day, I came from Alberta, private insurance does nothing but benefit the consumer. The really sad part about insurance is that the person handling your claim can make the process very simple and pleasant or very terrible, and more often than not it boils down to whether or not that person is having a shitty day and how they feel about you as a person.

Thats my .02

[dai3yuen]

So, in that case, you cannot truly compare BC rates to QC rates as you are not making a direct/fair comparison between the two provinces.

BTW, the rate drop could have been a lot more if the Liberals hadn't 'stolen' (from everyone who buys insurance) over $700 million back in March!!!

http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...822/story.html

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by dai3yuen

So, in that case, you cannot truly compare BC rates to QC rates as you are not making a direct/fair comparison between the two provinces.

BTW, the rate drop could have been a lot more if the Liberals hadn't 'stolen' (from everyone who buys insurance) over $700 million back in March!!!

http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...822/story.html

Well lets be realistic here, whether its common law or civil code, private insurance or govt insurance, and at fualt or no fault, there is differences between basically every province in Canada and the world so there is no direct measure of comparing.

There is no reason the option for private insurance shouldnt be available in this province, especially when you consider that ICBC mandates only the first 200000 liability must be provided by ICBC and any additional coverage can be provided by a private insurer.

To me there is an obvious conflict of interest when you have one party acting on behalf of both parties involved in a collision, there is nothing preventing ICBC from making decisions strictly in the interest of self preservation, profit, and abuse.

Main thing is this,what do you as a consumer have to lose by ICBC opening up the province to private insurers to provide 100% coverage?

Answer that...?

Now ask yourself this, what does ICBC have to lose by opening up the province to private insurers to provide 100% coverage?

They have everything to lose, the main issues being finances and control.

The garbage that ICBC feeds people of why govt insurance is a better system, is because... according to ICBC "It prevents uninsured motorists"... and how does the govt system of insurance here prevent that exactly? It doesnt, it's bull shit.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

The garbage that ICBC feeds people of why govt insurance is a better system, is because... according to ICBC "It prevents uninsured motorists"... and how does the govt system of insurance here prevent that exactly? It doesnt, it's bull shit.

I will tell you there are BIG downsides of private insurance, and I much prefer BC and Quebec system of mixed public-private.

The private system is based on investments. Insurance companies keep must keep X invested to insure Y motorists, with each motorist requiring a different amount invested based on the risk of them making a claim. Thus private insurance wants to keep as many good drivers cause for the same X invested they can take on more drivers. Thus private insurers look for every reason to screw you if you're a bad driver.

Public is a little different cause it is backstopped by the government. This is why you here about ICBC not being able to do a 1:1 of "reserves" against the private industry cause the rules don't work the same. If ICBC suddenly needs more invested to cover riskier drivers, then that is backstopped by our tax dollars instead of what private insurers would do - punt bad drivers.

Now you might be saying "ok, punt the bad drivers!" until you realize what private insurance companies sometimes do is criminal. One accident and they'll double or triple your rates in order to "get rid of you" forcing you to another insurer, at a bad time for you, so your insurance history gets screwed and you lose years of good driving for just one bad incident. Not fair, yet happens all the time.

This is why I like the mixed system. Anyone can get basic insurance, and there's competition for collision/comprehensive/liability. I just wish basic rewarded good drivers a bit more.

[slow-fastback]

jeffh works for icbc.

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I will tell you there are BIG downsides of private insurance, and I much prefer BC and Quebec system of mixed public-private.

The private system is based on investments. Insurance companies keep must keep X invested to insure Y motorists, with each motorist requiring a different amount invested based on the risk of them making a claim. Thus private insurance wants to keep as many good drivers cause for the same X invested they can take on more drivers. Thus private insurers look for every reason to screw you if you're a bad driver.

Public is a little different cause it is backstopped by the government. This is why you here about ICBC not being able to do a 1:1 of "reserves" against the private industry cause the rules don't work the same. If ICBC suddenly needs more invested to cover riskier drivers, then that is backstopped by our tax dollars instead of what private insurers would do - punt bad drivers.

Now you might be saying "ok, punt the bad drivers!" until you realize what private insurance companies sometimes do is criminal. One accident and they'll double or triple your rates in order to "get rid of you" forcing you to another insurer, at a bad time for you, so your insurance history gets screwed and you lose years of good driving for just one bad incident. Not fair, yet happens all the time.

This is why I like the mixed system. Anyone can get basic insurance, and there's competition for collision/comprehensive/liability. I just wish basic rewarded good drivers a bit more.

All insurance companies in Canada whether they are private or public still have to abide by the same federal regulations set forth by the superindent of insurance. (AFAIK, you might be able to correct me here... but please provide some sort of link/source)

Insurance companies in Canada have to meet the following basic requirements, (among others...)

-Minimum 10 million dollar cash reserves
-They are only required to be able to cover 10% of their outstanding policy's at any given time, the rest of the money they have collected in premiums may be invested as the company see's fit.

It is the actuary's job to make sure this balance of premiums collected, funds in reserve, and total capital invested remains within required percentages.

Private insurance does not look for every chance to screw their customers, that is a very poor opionionated statement, lets keep this argument as factual as possible.

It should also be noted that most provinces do have some form of regulation imposed on insurers such as Alberta and the "Grid", whcih prevents abuse... having competition also prevents abuse.

I think what ICBC does is criminal lol. My GF had one accident at 18, 350$ claim, she was never told she could pay for herself, and her insurance now has a 40% surcharge (thousands a year vs 350$ once...). How is that any different than private increasing your rates? In Alberta, if you had the same type of accident happen, with same driving experience, etc, you would only be paying an additional 5-10% over last years premiums.

ICBC sucks, period. Open this province up to full private insurance and they only thing that would suffer is the number of propertys ICBC owns.

I guess my point is I dont care if ICBC is backstopped by tax dollars, private insurers with no tax dollar backing are providing cheaper insurance, I dont care how they leverage my premiums.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I think what ICBC does is criminal lol. My GF had one accident at 18, 350$ claim, she was never told she could pay for herself, and her insurance now has a 40% surcharge (thousands a year vs 350$ once...). How is that any different than private increasing your rates? In Alberta, if you had the same type of accident happen, with same driving experience, etc, you would only be paying an additional 5-10% over last years premiums.

In your girlfriend's case, how much would have the premiums been in Alberta on the same vehicle with a similar level of coverage? When I heard what my cousin in Ontario was paying on a Civic, I was shocked.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

In your girlfriend's case, how much would have the premiums been in Alberta on the same vehicle with a similar level of coverage? When I heard what my cousin in Ontario was paying on a Civic, I was shocked.

You noticed he left that out too

As for the 5-10% increase for an accident, now who's making up figures. I was 17yo, took driver's ed and reduced my insurance premium 30%. Once ticket later and the discount was completely wiped out.

Many private insurers do offer accident forgiveness, yet not for anyone with less than 6 years of clean driving. Which highlights another point, ICBC has fair rules set in stone for how your rates change when shit happens. Private insurers are free to set their own rates despite what Jason says. There are basic rules to follow, yet get a quote for insurance in Ontario and see how much of a discrepancy there is. It could vary by > $500 between insurers. Why such a difference is everyone is playing by the same rules? Oh ya, they aren't.

[97ITR]

Once upon a time I bitched about ICBC too... then I moved out East and realized how good I had it before. Despite being in my late twenties and accident free, I'm still paying more out here than I was back home. Not to mention my deductible is higher here and overall coverage is less.

A lot of private insurance companies out here also won't insure modified cars.... it was a royal pain in the ass to find one that did.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by 97ITR

A lot of private insurance companies out here also won't insure modified cars.... it was a royal pain in the ass to find one that did.

Ya, I was surprised at how easy it was to insure a modified car in BC. I brought most of my stock parts just incase to swap, yet no need. I only have a body kit, cat-back, and coilovers - yet most Ontario companies wouldn't insure me. Friends with turbos or engine swaps had to go through high-risk insurance (Facility) and pay a small fortune.

[jasonturbo]

Well for me to provide exact figures on how much my gf's insurance would have increased had the same accident happened in Alberta, it would have had to happened there.

http://www.kanetix.ca/ic_auto_info_auto_articles_40

There is your Alberta grid, private insurers are not allowed to charge whatever they like according to your driving record and claims history, it is a set system. Surcharges/discounts aside, you would find your base premium much much cheaper in Alberta. If you dont believe me, call them and get a quote while providing accurate information.

Ontario is a very bad example to compare, BC and Ontario have the most expensive insurance premiums in Canada, I would provide a source for this but I dont have my text bools in electronic format, sorry.

It will never be possible to compare BC to Ontario, Alberta to Ontario, or any other combinitaion of provinces to one another and actually come out with a clear picture due to a infinite number of variables.

I have been in BC for 2 years and in that time I dont think I have met a single person who actually thought their claim was handled fairly, I have been confided in many times regarding peoples claims and it seems that ICBC has no interest in serving their customers fairly. Let me share my one experience with ICBC...

New BC resident, and my GF as secondary driver who has lived here her whole life...

My gf was driving, some guy runs a stop sign, she clips his back bumper, then he speeds off. Luckily my GF knew who he was and of course told the police when she filled out her police report, my gf and the guy would later end up bumping into each other at the hospital.

The pathfinder is a mess, not driveable and she was doing about 60km/h.

So the cops find him and ticket/charge/etc him for leaving the scene and all that other good stuff, and we contact ICBC. I am told that they will tow the pathfinder, and start the claims process, I only have basic coverage, no collision, and I am not eligible for roadstar (New to BC) so I wont have a rental vehicle provided for me during the claims process and repairs.

Well now here's where ICBC starts to suck hard, even though this is a clean cut case of the guy running a stop sign (with witnesses), and being at fault, he has 3 months to make his statement with ICBC, and until he does so, nothing will happen with my claim at all. I cant even find out if ICBC will wright the pathfinder off or repair it so I can either do the repairs or replace the vehicle and then be reimbursed by ICBC later... so for up to three months I am shelling out for a rental car that I wont be reimbursed for, a cost which I never would have had if I wasnt hit by the other driver who was at fault. (Where is my indemnity now ICBC? you cunts...)

So two months after the claim was started the guy finally does his statement and admits to being at fault (he was high at the time btw and this is his second accident and he has had a dui before, at the young age of 21). So I get paid out for the pathfinder and ICBC basically tells me that for the 2 months we had to pay for a rental, thats too bad, its our fault for not having roadstar... even though it was the other drivers fault the accident happens.

So first, the concept of having three months to give your statement is retarded, ICBC defends the three months as they have had cases in the past where a driver has had an accident, left the country and then returned to find out that ICBC has ruled against them in a claim becuase they did not make a statement... LIKE FUCK ME, YOU HAVE A CAR ACCIDENT AND CANT SPEND A COUPLE HOURS MAKING A STATEMENT BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE COUNTRY? YOU CANT EMAIL YOUR STATEMENT??? WTF

To indemnify is to return the insured to the same state they were in prior to suffering a loss... well when I shell out 2 months worth of rental cars as a result of a loss which is being covered by ICBC... how does that not become part of the loss?

Siiiigh, I am all for insurance, but where is the logic in BC denying private insurers? If the private insurers were so bad, then I guess everyone would just stay with ICBC anyway, so what does the province stand to lose?

Grrrr... wha the province is doing is unethical, period.

PS According to the grid, my gf, with drivers training (-2), driving since 16 (18 at time of accident btw so two years of clean driving move her another -2) for a (-4) on the grid at the time of the accident,... one at fault claim puts her back to (+1)... so in reality... she would have 10% surcharge..


SOOOO FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU

[xpl0sive]

if you still have your invoices for the rental cars and it hasn't been more than 2 years since the accident i suggest you talk to a lawyer. if you don't have roadstar coverage, and fault has not been decided, you pay for your rental car then ICBC HAS to reimburse you out of the other driver's TPL if he is proven to be at fault... those are the costs you have incurred because of the accident, so you are entitled to get that money back.

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by xpl0sive

if you still have your invoices for the rental cars and it hasn't been more than 2 years since the accident i suggest you talk to a lawyer. if you don't have roadstar coverage, and fault has not been decided, you pay for your rental car then ICBC HAS to reimburse you out of the other driver's TPL if he is proven to be at fault... those are the costs you have incurred because of the accident, so you are entitled to get that money back.

Oh lol I know...

It only cost me about 1000$ for the rental, which to me wasnt worth starting a pissing contest with ICBC, and I was concerned that doing so could lead to me being treated even worse if I end up with another claim at a later date.

On top of that I was travelling a lot at the time and was just happy I got paid out and it was done with, plus I got 4k more than I paid for the pathfinder so I didnt really care.