Ive always gotten 1 mill liability.
Its impossible to extract money from icbc now
So why go 2, 3, 5 mill?

Cuz if you hit my ass and I get fucked up, I’m pretty sure my expenses (and thus you’ll be liable) will be wayyy more than a million bucks.

You’re just playing the odds here man. If you hit a van full of people or even two moderately high income individuals and say they can’t work for a few years, you’ll be screwed.

Pain and suffering is capped now. But future loss of income as far as I know isn’t.

What’s the extra few million anyways ? 100-200 bucks a year ? Pennies for piece of mind. I always get 5 million.

Class action suit against ICBC and the government.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...suit-1.5483879

Weren't governments taking money out of optional insurance? And wasn't that always allowed?

I can't help but wonder if this is payback for cutting out the lawyers.

I'm surprised that out of all the possible potential plaintiffs, they went with a 70 year old male.

While it is true that the average Canadian man lives to 80+, wouldn't the lawsuit just fall apart if the plantiff dies? Of course I am not wishing anything on the 70 year old, but statistically speaking, this adds an unnecessary risk, and this type of lawsuit will probably take years to duke it out in court.

get 2-ch dash cam and drive safely...i'm not saying to just get basic coverage but if i cause an at-fault accident that can prevent someone else from walking/working again then i don't deserve to be on the road

I don't get why so many modern cars have 360 view and yet don't allow owner to record footage off them.

Over the years, I've probably dumped easily 2000+ on dashcams. Only to have 2 breakins with 3 camera stolen. The current one on family van is just one from my dad as he went from 2cars to 1. 0 footage ever used, except a hot chick crossing the street and my buddy in pax seat asked me to download the vid.

Every manufacturer should take a note from Tesla. Their 360 cam record all the time and the car basically has a black box built into.

Nothing is free.

So you’re one of those people.

https://pics.me.me/what-do-you-mean-...e-51848037.png

Go talk to some of the longshore who works in our ports. They pull in over 350k a year or some of the old foremens who can do almost 500k. Hit them and see what happens. Same with management... 1 million bucks isn’t going to cover you if you seriously hurt these guys. It doesn’t take much to get off for MVA 6 months to a year or more.

What if you run over Jeff Bezos?

Just curious, has anyone added their parents onto their policy and get cheaper rates? Since they are "safer" drivers? :pokerface:Or will it push your rate up since you're adding another driver?:okay:

I did, saved 50 bucks.

That has to be the weirdest part of the new ICBC rules. You can add someone you know will never drive your car and save money if their record is spotless, even though you could still a be shitty driver yourself lol

Yea but if you get into an accident, doesn't it effect their rates?

I don't think so, it's not their car and they weren't driving.

Every single one of my friends who still lives at home with a bunch of tickets added their moms and end up paying less than me. Bull

That's not how it works. The logic is if the driver you added has more diving experience than you, and will from time to time use you car, that means you (the less experienced) will not drive it as much, therefore the risk of claim is lower.

But who actually regulates that? If you add someone with more driving experience are you limited to how much you can drive your car now per month now? Do you need proof they actually drive your car?

Well no one, but no one can regulate anything really just like how you can lie on the sale price of the craigslist car you bought, or insuring a car for your kids under your name but they're the primary driver. Technically it's insurance fraud but that's the logic behind it.

There is no min in their outline of how much they have to drive the car, so you can technically have them roll down the block and you've covered your bases. Technically.

Which was basically my point, it's a loophole to save money. For someone like me who will be the only person driving my truck, it makes sense to put the most experienced driver I know as a driver on my insurance and pay less with no repercussions.

That's just called lying and insurance fraud, not a loophole.

You can get a collector plated car and drive it to work everyday, that's not a loophole either.

We're talking about saving 30-50 dollars here, not thousands or even hundreds.

Fraud how? Does it say anywhere that they MUST drive the car a certain amount? Or is it just that it's possible they will use it? Anything is possible.

It's a retarded rule to begin with,. If I drive my car everyday and then once a month my grandma takes it to bingo for an hour, is my risk really less and deserving of a lower rate?

It's a rule that begs to be taken advantage of and I definitely will and not feel guilty at all. I'll wait for the deep investigation when I get into an accident in my own car that I'm allowed to drive as much as I want. All that fraud going on lol.

The part where you admitted you would be the only person driving the car but you're going to add a driver anyways for the discount?

For someone like me who will be the only person driving my truck, it makes sense to put the most experienced driver I know as a driver on my insurance and pay less with no repercussions.

I don't give a rats ass if you want to add Bernie Sanders and and Louis Hamilton as your 2nd driver, I'm just explaining how it works and the logic behind it.

To reduce your premiums by listing another driver, they have to be part of your household, or an employee.
Not just an acquaintance.