ICBC loses $935M in first 9 months of fiscal year,projects $1.3billion operating loss

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Why is there a 'rapid increase in crashes across BC'? To me that doesn't make sense, I'm curious if ICBC realizes why they are losing money.

Is auto insurance any cheaper in BC than in AB?

maybe someone with a similar truck can chime in.... i have a 2014 silverado crew cab and my insurance (in BC) is a little over $1000/yr

coverage is just the normal liability and collision stuff.

i think part of it has to do with vehicles now, where so much stuff seems to break in very minor collisions, causing repair costs to be crazy

i think another huge part are the payouts people get. i've known a couple guys that have been in accidents and the advice they told me is don't sign anything!! draw it out as long as possible and you'll get a way bigger settlement.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

i think another huge part are the payouts people get. i've known a couple guys that have been in accidents and the advice they told me is don't sign anything!! draw it out as long as possible and you'll get a way bigger settlement.

Do these guys also complain about the cost of insurance?

[604flames]

I moved back to the Lower Mainland in March after eight years in the Kootenays. It is absolutely my opinion that traffic here is worse than it was in 2009 and that driving habits have worsened as well.

Oh and I pay about $50 more per month for insurance here than in the Interior (~$155 vs. $105).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by speede5

The repair costs on vehicles aren't really a problem. It is all in the injury claims. It's the same reason motorcycle insurance has gone through the roof here in SK. The payout on the vehichles is only a small portion of what is paid out but the injury claims are the major cost driver.

Everyone always equates the cost of insurance to the vehicle, and it does effect the rate but that is a minor factor. Accident rates per type of vehicle will indicate that there is more chance of a liability claim and are the main driver in rates.

At least that's been my understanding watching SGI closely the last few years. It's kinda interesting reading their annual reports. There is no reason ICBC should be in such a pickle.

As a lawyer in BC, who does a lot of personal injury work, there are a bunch of factors contributing to ICBC's financial situation:

1. The cost of vehicle repair has increased significantly. The province is also flush with high end vehicles, which are more expensive to repair.
2. There are more injury claims. More people are bringing claims with a lawyer, who would otherwise settle it for themselves for far lower amounts.
3. Doctors have increased their rates substantially for providing medical opinions and records.
4. The province has been invaded by two large firms from Ontario: Diamond and Diamond, and Prezsler law, who have both put in significant amounts of resources into advertising.
5. The government took billions out of BC investment accounts. Insurance companies operate based on the investment income from their investment accounts. Taking out billions translates into losses decades later.
6.People are getting into more accidents due to smart phones.
7. ICBC itself is not known for its efficiency.

Right now the government is talking about a cap on small injury claims. I'm not sure this is the answer. People who have to deal with WCB (your only recourse in BC if your hurt while working), typically end up very dissatisfied.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

As a lawyer in BC, who does a lot of personal injury work, there are a bunch of factors contributing to ICBC's financial situation:

1. The cost of vehicle repair has increased significantly. The province is also flush with high end vehicles, which are more expensive to repair.
2. There are more injury claims. More people are bringing claims with a lawyer, who would otherwise settle it for themselves for far lower amounts.
3. Doctors have increased their rates substantially for providing medical opinions and records.
4. The province has been invaded by two large firms from Ontario: Diamond and Diamond, and Prezsler law, who have both put in significant amounts of resources into advertising.
5. The government took billions out of BC investment accounts. Insurance companies operate based on the investment income from their investment accounts. Taking out billions translates into losses decades later.
6.People are getting into more accidents due to smart phones.
7. ICBC itself is not known for its efficiency.

Right now the government is talking about a cap on small injury claims. I'm not sure this is the answer. People who have to deal with WCB (your only recourse in BC if your hurt while working), typically end up very dissatisfied.

We need to take more out of ICBC so you're going to have to take less.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

maybe someone with a similar truck can chime in.... i have a 2014 silverado crew cab and my insurance (in BC) is a little over $1000/yr

coverage is just the normal liability and collision stuff.

i think part of it has to do with vehicles now, where so much stuff seems to break in very minor collisions, causing repair costs to be crazy

i think another huge part are the payouts people get. i've known a couple guys that have been in accidents and the advice they told me is don't sign anything!! draw it out as long as possible and you'll get a way bigger settlement.

I'm in Alberta and have a 2014 F150 Supercrew. Never had an accident on my record, so I presume I am in the cheapest category.

I pay $1500 a year.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

Isn't ICBC motor vehicle insurance only? If they also have a monopoly on fire/home insurance that's just bad business.

Not sure if ICBC does property also but property insurance is open to all companies in BC just vehicle insurance is government.

[Erick Estrada]

I agree with a small injury cap. It's pretty disgusting how some people totally act it up when they get involved in a minor fender bender.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

We need to take more out of ICBC so you're going to have to take less.

Pretty much. Although lawyers, plaintiffs, and doctors have all done their part to increase claims too. Part of that is the way that ICBC has run their negotiation process. They brought in a new management team about 5 years ago, who's strategy was to hardball every plaintiff to decrease claims. It did the opposite, as people started getting more lawyers and lawyers started case building more to maximize claims.

There's actually a press conference today on the issue in about 1/2 an hour. The government should be announcing their plan.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I agree with a small injury cap. It's pretty disgusting how some people totally act it up when they get involved in a minor fender bender.

The issue with that is that some people get really bad injuries from small accidents. So if you throw people into a category of payment based on accident size alone / injury-type, some people get royally f-ed.

I do, however, agree that there are many claims that are exaggerated.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I agree with a small injury cap. It's pretty disgusting how some people totally act it up when they get involved in a minor fender bender.

The problem is you now have the mechanism of injury dictating the recovery on that injury. A WAD 2 in Alberta sustained in a MVC is capped, but if you get a WAD 2 in an incident not related to an MVC is it not capped.

I don't agree with this approach.

[Calgary14]

A friend of mine in BC who has windshield coverage got a quote for a new windshield (in BC). The total invoiced amount was around $800. Deductible was $500. He came to Calgary and got a new windshield for less than $200 and paid out of pocket

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by blankall

As a lawyer in BC, who does a lot of personal injury work, there are a bunch of factors contributing to ICBC's financial situation:

1. The cost of vehicle repair has increased significantly. The province is also flush with high end vehicles, which are more expensive to repair.
2. There are more injury claims. More people are bringing claims with a lawyer, who would otherwise settle it for themselves for far lower amounts.
3. Doctors have increased their rates substantially for providing medical opinions and records.
4. The province has been invaded by two large firms from Ontario: Diamond and Diamond, and Prezsler law, who have both put in significant amounts of resources into advertising.
5. The government took billions out of BC investment accounts. Insurance companies operate based on the investment income from their investment accounts. Taking out billions translates into losses decades later.
6.People are getting into more accidents due to smart phones.
7. ICBC itself is not known for its efficiency.

Right now the government is talking about a cap on small injury claims. I'm not sure this is the answer. People who have to deal with WCB (your only recourse in BC if your hurt while working), typically end up very dissatisfied.

I can't find it off hand, but I was reading somewhere that distracted driving accidents have been trending down a couple percentage points the last couple years as people have been educated and laws have been passed. Drunk driving is up, and the biggest increase was from more elderly people on the road, which may be a factor in some parts of BC.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

A friend of mine in BC who has windshield coverage got a quote for a new windshield (in BC). The total invoiced amount was around $800. Deductible was $500. He came to Calgary and got a new windshield for less than $200 and paid out of pocket

i found this too with my old old truck. i bought it off a couple in Olds and the windshield was cracked so i called my folks to see if they could find out how much it would cost to fix in kelowna (i knew it had to be replaced to pass the BC inspection). i don't recall the price my dad was quoted, but it was waaaaay cheaper to pay out of pocket in calgary to get the work done rather than in kelowna. i think i ended up paying $150 (back in 1997).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by blankall

The issue with that is that some people get really bad injuries from small accidents. So if you throw people into a category of payment based on accident size alone / injury-type, some people get royally f-ed.

I do, however, agree that there are many claims that are exaggerated.

I want to agree with the idea that claims are exaggerated, but it's such a difficult situation. I had an accident years ago, and the injuries were minor. I settled it and that was that. Then last year (like 15-20 years later) I had to have surgery on my back which was fairly major surgery. Can I say 100% conclusively that the injury was from that accident? I guess not. I played all kinds of sports and did all kinds of things throughout my life. All I know is that prior to that accident I never had back issues before.

That said, in a former life when I was an adjuster, I would see claims and just think there was zero percent chance that the injuries could be that bad. So while the car would have like $100 in damages, people were off work and having a lot of issues. Overall, it feels like it would be rife with malingerers and people gaming the system. I just don't know though.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I can't find it off hand, but I was reading somewhere that distracted driving accidents have been trending down a couple percentage points the last couple years as people have been educated and laws have been passed. Drunk driving is up, and the biggest increase was from more elderly people on the road, which may be a factor in some parts of BC.

There's always a lag between accidents and payouts. So many of the big ICBC payouts that ICBC is complaining about probably stem from accidents that happened 3-5 years ago. Also, even if smart phone accidents are trending down, they're still a lot higher than they were 10 years ago, when smartphones were rare.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by blankall

The issue with that is that some people get really bad injuries from small accidents. So if you throw people into a category of payment based on accident size alone / injury-type, some people get royally f-ed.

I do, however, agree that there are many claims that are exaggerated.

Define "really bad". I believe a very, very, very small amount of people would suffer long term injuries from a minor fender bender which in most cities is the majority of accidents. Putting a cap on that may suck for a very tiny percentage but at the end of the day the other 90%+ are getting overcompensated even with a cap.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Slava

I want to agree with the idea that claims are exaggerated, but it's such a difficult situation. I had an accident years ago, and the injuries were minor. I settled it and that was that. Then last year (like 15-20 years later) I had to have surgery on my back which was fairly major surgery. Can I say 100% conclusively that the injury was from that accident? I guess not. I played all kinds of sports and did all kinds of things throughout my life. All I know is that prior to that accident I never had back issues before.

That said, in a former life when I was an adjuster, I would see claims and just think there was zero percent chance that the injuries could be that bad. So while the car would have like $100 in damages, people were off work and having a lot of issues. Overall, it feels like it would be rife with malingerers and people gaming the system. I just don't know though.

That's the issue. No one except the injured party really knows how bad their injuries are...well sometimes, like in your case, they don't know either. From a lawyer's perspective, it's hard to tell sometimes as well. There are also a lot of people who have a lot of things go wrong in their life and then genuinely believe that a car accident was responsible for that, which may or may not be the case.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Define "really bad". I believe a very, very, very small amount of people would suffer long term injuries from a minor fender bender which in most cities is the majority of accidents. Putting a cap on that may suck for a very tiny percentage but at the end of the day the other 90%+ are getting overcompensated even with a cap.

A disc injury that prevents you from working, for example, I would define as really bad.

I agree it is a small percentage who have genuine large injuries. However, you have to remember that of the cases that make it to court or go far into the settlement process, you are only dealing with a small percentage by that point anyways.

It's a bit of a no win situation. If you put in a hard cap, people who are genuinely hurt get unfairly treated. If you don't have a cap, people take advantage of the system. Since you can never really know just how injured a person is, it's not possible to come up with a perfect system.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's a bit of a no win situation. If you put in a hard cap, people who are genuinely hurt get unfairly treated. If you don't have a cap, people take advantage of the system. Since you can never really know just how injured a person is, it's not possible to come up with a perfect system.

Obviously this doesn't happen in every case, but this is the reason why insurance companies hire private investigators to tail claimants and see if their injury claims are exaggerated.