ICBC claim for ice, collision or comprehensive?

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Start a poll, I'm willing to bet instinct will have most try to steer out and forget to bail at the last minute and hop the curb. Its not like they teach how to crash in driving school - except in Richmond.

I guess I'm not "most".

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Start a poll, I'm willing to bet instinct will have most try to steer out and forget to bail at the last minute and hop the curb. Its not like they teach how to crash in driving school - except in Richmond.

So you fail my post for suggesting your gf's lack of driving skill is the sole cause of the accident and now suggest that ICBC should somehow not consider it a collision because most people would react the same way?

What the hell happened to personal accountability?

[jeffh]

^ this
op is a fucking retard

if the conditions are so dangerous that you cannot avoid a collision, it is then your responsibility to not be on the roads

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by jeffh

^ this
op is a fucking retard

if the conditions are so dangerous that you cannot avoid a collision, it is then your responsibility to not be on the roads

Get off your high horse. People make mistakes, hopefully when you do you'll post so I can mock you.

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Get off your high horse. People make mistakes, hopefully when you do you'll post so I can mock you.

I hear manslaughter is a "mistake" too.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Get off your high horse. People make mistakes, hopefully when you do you'll post so I can mock you.

Nobody is faulting your gf for making a mistake. It's your lack of personal responsibility that we find appalling by trying to pass this off as a comprehensive claim so your rates won't increase.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Marco911

Nobody is faulting your gf for making a mistake. It's your lack of personal responsibility that we find appalling by trying to pass this off as a comprehensive claim so your rates won't increase.

I find it appalling that insurance companies don't take weather related accidents as comprehensive, and that so many people who drive cars agree with that.

I cannot predict ice around a corner better than I can predict an animal will jump out infront of my car, especially at night. To say you just shouldn't drive in these conditions is ridiculous, we live in Canada. Even snow tires won't help you much on ice.

[jeffh]

heres how you predict

OBSERVATION
if its freezing cold everywhere, and there was moisture previously on the road, you can bet there will be ice, that is nature

you should be approaching every corner in this situation suspecting that there will be ice, and driving to that condition, not waiting for ice to magically appear underneath you, and then getting into a slide

also, you CAN predict and anticipate wildlife on the highway, there are road signs to alert you to high traffic areas, and there are also certain times of day when critters like deer are more likely to be on the highway

ive had 2 collisions in my 10 year driving career, both my fault, both of which i paid for out of pocket to maintain my premiums and accident free status with ICBC

if it goes through your comprehensive, that means every other driver in bc has to subsidize what is really, and at fault collision. not fair imo

[RRxtar]

taylor man normally im on your side in arguments in threads but you're wrong on this one

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by RRxtar

taylor man normally im on your side in arguments in threads but you're wrong on this one

Insurance here doesn't cover pot hole/road conditions damage either - yet thankfully the state of Utah does when I bent and cracked my rear wheels in the canyons. Utah paid 100% of the costs to fix my wheels and buy new tires - they have an insurance fund just for this. Glad I asked at the time.

That's why I asked here, just the answer for BC sucks. I cannot find anyone online that has successfully fought ICBC on it, so at least she's still going to have her full discount afterwards.

[TRDood]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Insurance here doesn't cover pot hole/road conditions damage either - yet thankfully the state of Utah does when I bent and cracked my rear wheels in the canyons. Utah paid 100% of the costs to fix my wheels and buy new tires - they have an insurance fund just for this. Glad I asked at the time.

That's why I asked here, just the answer for BC sucks. I cannot find anyone online that has successfully fought ICBC on it, so at least she's still going to have her full discount afterwards.

Can't compare Utah vs. BC for auto insurance. They offer different coverages under different laws. Same goes for Ontario vs BC.

Put it this way, if ICBC is to allocate any black ice related claims to comprehensive and cannot recover through the insured, other policyholders will share the burden. Basically you are proposing that weather related collisions should be under comprehensive because the weather is not predictable. Is that reasonable?
Posted via RS Mobile

[gars]

I thought Ontario is all private insurance? Wouldn't that mean that different companies offer different coverages? Are all collisions caused by Ice in Ontario covered under comprehensive? I find it hard to believe that if you have snow tires and were driving at a reasonable speed, if you hit ice, your insurance company would swallow the cost.

sounds like a very easy way for people to cheat the system without raising their premiums.

[GabAlmighty]

Why you failin me bro? Is it cuz i'm right?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by TRDood

Can't compare Utah vs. BC for auto insurance. They offer different coverages under different laws. Same goes for Ontario vs BC.

Absolutely, thus why I asked. I asked in Utah and was pleasantly surprised, I asked here and am disappointed. No harm, no foul for asking - better than not knowing.

Originally Posted by TRDood

Basically you are proposing that weather related collisions should be under comprehensive because the weather is not predictable. Is that reasonable?

No basically about it. I've been very clear a few times that I think it should be covered if you've got good tires and were not driving unreasonably.

She made it around several side streets and roundabouts before this one bit her, so it was reasonable for her to expect to navigate this one successfully - unfortunately she didn't - I think that's reasonable, yet concede it would be difficult to judge, and prone to abuse. Thus why I asked if anyone has successfully done it, cause maybe there was a way that is reasonable.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by gars

I thought Ontario is all private insurance? Wouldn't that mean that different companies offer different coverages? Are all collisions caused by Ice in Ontario covered under comprehensive? I find it hard to believe that if you have snow tires and were driving at a reasonable speed, if you hit ice, your insurance company would swallow the cost.

sounds like a very easy way for people to cheat the system without raising their premiums.

Ontario also calls it a single vehicle accident, yet there are ways to fight the private companies to get it covered without affecting your rates - cause they all have different policies, some more lenient than others.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by jeffh

also, you CAN predict and anticipate wildlife on the highway, there are road signs to alert you to high traffic areas, and there are also certain times of day when critters like deer are more likely to be on the highway

Yet hitting an animal is covered under comprehensive regardless of these signs. That helps my point, not yours.

Originally Posted by jeffh

if it goes through your comprehensive, that means every other driver in bc has to subsidize what is really, and at fault collision. not fair imo

Considering what good drivers pay in this province, we're subsidizing something. My insurance is 50% higher for the same coverage compared to Ontario, and Ontario insurance is at the high end cost of private insurance.

I have 8 years clean, and would drop to a 2 CRS if I had an accident today, vs my insurance in Ontario would ignore my first accident at this point.

Anyways that's a whole other discussion, yet you can see why I think its important to keep your CRS high.

[littledog]

I'm just curious...you said your gf has private insurance for comprehensive and collision, is ICBC still involved in this case (i.e. CRS still affected) since it has nothing to do with ICBC?

[jeffh]

you sir, have missed the point
if you tell an adjuster at ICBC you hit an animal on the road
then it is again at at fault collision

if the animal hit your car however, it is the same as a rock hitting your windshield, it is an outside energy causing damage to your car

not the inertia of your car, causing damage to itself

seems like simple semantics, but it makes a huge difference in the legal shitstorm to follow

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by taylor192

No basically about it. I've been very clear a few times that I think it should be covered if you've got good tires and were not driving unreasonably.

She made it around several side streets and roundabouts before this one bit her, so it was reasonable for her to expect to navigate this one successfully - unfortunately she didn't - I think that's reasonable, yet concede it would be difficult to judge, and prone to abuse. Thus why I asked if anyone has successfully done it, cause maybe there was a way that is reasonable.

Under certain conditions, ICBC will determine a single vehicle accident as no fault resulting from weather conditions, but the conditions required are quite stringent. Basically, it needs to be proven that the road could not be navigated safely by a properly equipped vehicle being driven appropriately for conditions. I have had two friends given that determination, both when navigating the highway between Abbotsford and Chilliwack. If there are numerous accidents on the same patch of highway, at the same time, that's how it's proven that the road could not be safely navigated.

Unfortunately, since I doubt five people were in accidents at the exact same spot as your gf that day, she probably wouldn't qualify. It was also likely not an inherently dangerous roadway, like the Abby-Wack highway, which also would hurt the case. You could try and appeal though, I would if it was a more expensive accident.

Also, touching on another point from the thread, I though ICBC had accident forgiveness for seven years of safe driving? Am I totally wrong.