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

[bluck]

I was paying $160 clean driving record in 2015-2016, had one accident, slip on black ice on a bridge and now I've been paying $205 a month for the past 2 years ish. Brutal.

[speede5]

My son was concussed over 3 years ago in an accident in BC. Of the 6 in the vehicle 2 others were severely injured and have had life altering injuries. My sons concussion is still affecting him today. He is expected to never fully recover from the concussion symptoms.

There has been no settlement yet with ICBC but hopefully something can happen this year. He lost income, a job (can't work construction outside in the heat), and has had a lot of out of pocket expenses due to the concussion. You would never know it if you just met him but the effects of the injury have been considerable. I am glad there is no cap on that like there is in SK and I hope his lawyer can get a fair settlement. A decent payout might seem like a cash grab but he would trade it for not having been injured in the first place.

[Table 5]

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.

I was in a car accident as a passenger about 15 years ago, one which I managed to get about $7500 or so in damages to cover lost work and some physio. Now my injury wasn't "really bad"...instead it's been "really annoying for a really long time". I can't fully turn my head in one direction, and have bouts of pain and stiffness for weeks at a time. I can live and work fine, but it's been this little reminder every day for many years now.

So it's not always the severity, but also the longevity.

Looking back on it now, what I would have really liked is not a larger lump sum...but coverage for long-term treatment. Ie, a set amount of money per year that I could potentially use for massages/physio etc.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by speede5

My son was concussed over 3 years ago in an accident in BC. Of the 6 in the vehicle 2 others were severely injured and have had life altering injuries. My sons concussion is still affecting him today. He is expected to never fully recover from the concussion symptoms.

There has been no settlement yet with ICBC but hopefully something can happen this year. He lost income, a job (can't work construction outside in the heat), and has had a lot of out of pocket expenses due to the concussion. You would never know it if you just met him but the effects of the injury have been considerable. I am glad there is no cap on that like there is in SK and I hope his lawyer can get a fair settlement. A decent payout might seem like a cash grab but he would trade it for not having been injured in the first place.

Concussion takes you out of the cap in Alberta also. My take on the cap is if you are in an accident and a little sore do some treatment take a settlement for cap or less. Its the ones that try to circumvent the cap with TMJ or PTSD etc in a minor accident that are the problem.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by bluck

I was paying $160 clean driving record in 2015-2016, had one accident, slip on black ice on a bridge and now I've been paying $205 a month for the past 2 years ish. Brutal.

I'm paying $219/month right now in North Vancouver. It would be slightly less if not for one very minor fender bender I had back in Calgary 2 years ago before I moved here, which like you was a result of black ice.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

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.

Do they do this frequently or just big cases. I know people that have been regulars at the gym despite claims for major back issues from fender benders. I don't know how far the investigators go but they would only have to get a day pass to see these guys doing exercises that aren't possible with a bad back to make an easy case for denial.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Do they do this frequently or just big cases. I know people that have been regulars at the gym despite claims for major back issues from fender benders. I don't know how far the investigators go but they would only have to get a day pass to see these guys doing exercises that aren't possible with a bad back to make an easy case for denial.

Did you report these people?

There are tip lines for this type of thing.

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/Pages/fraud.aspx

http://www.ibc.ca/sk/auto/insurance-...port-the-crime

[cKy]

For those with high insurance rates in BC, you dont need to just use ICBC. You can use a secondary insurance as well. You just need minimum coverage on ICBC and then can use another company for your other coverage.

My wife works for an insurance company out here so we get a discount, but it may be worth it for some of you to look into that.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

GDP growth under the BC liberals has stagnated, they have routinely used crown corporations to prop up ill advised tax cuts, and they've sold what were otherwise profitable, revenue generating crown assets for meagre returns.

The province is massively in debt.




https://www.biv.com/article/2014/6/g...by-most-taxpa/

Further, the ideology of these stupid public private partnerships, where the government is unable to take advantage of historically low borrowing rates, has inflated the costs of necessary infrastructure that will haunt this province for the next 50 year or longer.

As economic stewards the BC Liberals have been awful.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If the NDP return to an infrastructure plan that minimizes p3 infrastructure projects, which all indications appear they will, that alone will save the province a significant amount of money.

I feel like people outside the province, and many inside the province, simply don't have a grasp on how far into debt the province is, and how ticky-tacky the user fee and tax increases have become.

I'm paying 15% more for alcohol now than I was in 2015, and businesses that sell alcohol are hurting a lot as a result. I'm paying more than 10% more for basic auto insurance than in 2015 and my msp premiums have risen about 40% in the last 5 years.

But surely they are small business friendly? Not according to the cheese eating communists at the Fraser Institute:



Here's more from those noted pinko commie bastards at the Fraser Institute:


Obviously there are significant drawbacks to an NDP government but I would happily take the 90s NDP economic numbers over the last 15 years of BC Liberal rule.

If Notley had added 18 billion in debt to a comparable utility in a 6 year period I cannot imagine how loud the crowing would be. I mean, look at it this way, the cost to phase out alberta's coal plants could end up being less than the debt added to BC hydro already, and phasing out coal will actually accomplish something for the province of Alberta.

To put it in perspective, BC crown corporations have acquired more debt during Christy Clark's 6 years in office than the entire NDP government racked up for the province in a decade in power. When the provincial NDP and the Fraser Institute are more or less in agreement, I feel like there is a pretty solid case for this being reality.

In the BC Liberal's own budget they project the total provincial debt to rise to 77 billion by 2020. That figure was a lowly 25 billion just 7 years ago.

I voted for Michael Chong in the CPC leadership race and I'll be holding my nose while voting NDP in the provincial election. What does that tell you about me as a voter?

This province is a friggin' disaster.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Did you report these people?

There are tip lines for this type of thing.

http://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/Pages/fraud.aspx

http://www.ibc.ca/sk/auto/insurance-...port-the-crime

No because they were acquaintances. I didn't personally agree with what they were doing but that's simply a road I don't feel comfortable going.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Do they do this frequently or just big cases.

I am not sure on the criteria used to decide which cases get surveillance; however, years ago I worked for a group insurance company, and saw video of guys with bad backs doing roofing and playing hockey. the hockey one was humorous as I guess the guy was hamming it up for the camera a bit.

years ago here in alberta, I was driving the kids to day care one fine april morning and I was rear ended (the other driver was not paying attention). the kids and I went for a couple of chiro treatments and in the end we wound up receiving about $3,000 or so. Personally I thought it was a sweet deal, since I only missed about a day of work and had no pain.

[DionTheDman]

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.

I do not subscribe to the view that if there is no motor vehicle damage then there is no injury. This is a philosophy that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may follow, but it has no application in court. It is not a legal principle of which I am aware and I have never heard it endorsed as a medical principle.



Significant injuries can be caused by the most casual of slips and falls. Conversely, accidents causing extensive property damage may leave those involved unscathed. The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court. Objectivity is thus preserved and the public does not have to concern itself with extraneous philosophies that some would impose on the judicial process.



In the case at bar the limited amount of motor vehicle damage is not, in my opinion, the yardstick by which to measure the extent of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. No evidence was called to substantiate the theory of "no physical damage: no injury". The plaintiff alleged serious back injuries and resultant damages. The extent will be decided on the evidence.

From here

[Erick Estrada]

Yeah but you have to understand that this has been a gold mine for lawyers and a cap is not in their best interests. I don't dispute that even a minor fender bender can injure a very small portion of the population but that doesn't mean insurance companies should be cutting $2-10k cheques to everyone that gets into a minor fender bender that complains they have a sore neck/back.

[DionTheDman]

You know what else is a gold mine? Insurance premiums for an Insurer that doesn't have to pay out claims. What's the point of having insurance if not for claiming restitution? If you had home insurance and after a loss, your losses are valuated at 800k, would you accept 300k, or would you get as close to full value as possible?

[Erick Estrada]

It’s a cap not a means for insurance companies to avoid paying out claims.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It’s a cap not a means for insurance companies to avoid paying out claims.

It is a means to reduce, significantly, the amounts paid on claims based on the mechanism of injury and severity of injury. You could argue that is creates more inflation of claims to get outside the cap.

I know I would claim Tinnitus (or mental trauma) if I was looking to get outside the cap.

[troutman]

Wow, this thread is 10 years old now:

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...a+minor+injury

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah but you have to understand that this has been a gold mine for lawyers and a cap is not in their best interests. I don't dispute that even a minor fender bender can injure a very small portion of the population but that doesn't mean insurance companies should be cutting $2-10k cheques to everyone that gets into a minor fender bender that complains they have a sore neck/back.

Most personal injury lawyers make their money off larger claims. Some won't even take the small one. Many of the small ones require just as much work as the larger ones, but pay out a fraction of the amount. It's a function of the contingency model.

The cap will probably be around the $10k mark. As such, it might result in more $10k cheques, as ICBC will cut those to avoid further expenses. The cap will prevent people who have relatively minor soft tissue injuries that persist from getting settlements in the $10k-30k range.

In other words, all the cap really does is throw everyone into the same category of injury, despite the fact that their individual injuries may vary greatly.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It is a means to reduce, significantly, the amounts paid on claims based on the mechanism of injury and severity of injury. You could argue that is creates more inflation of claims to get outside the cap.

I know I would claim Tinnitus (or mental trauma) if I was looking to get outside the cap.

This is exactly it. Things may backfire if the cap is too small.

There's also a variety of chronic pain injuries that can be diagnosed fairly easily by a physiatrist, yet are entirely dependent on the patient's self-reporting, that would push you outside of the cap. So basically, if someone really wants to build a case and lie about it, a cap doesn't really stop them from doing that. In fact, all it really does is drive up legal/medical fees on those cases.

This is a large part of why insurance is really not all that much cheaper in Alberta on average compared to BC. The main difference between insurance rates in BC and Alberta, is that Alberta allows different rates based on age and gender, which BC does not allow. So for young males insurance is much cheaper in BC. For everyone else it's slightly more expensive.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nah, it has more to do with the fact that the BC Liberals were consistently raiding ICBC to fund their general budget in order to make it look like they were balancing budgets. It was a really good shell game for them and now the NDP will get the blame for the fallout and whatever unpopular move they're forced to make because of it.

I understand this has happened, but this doesn't really explain the losses for the year, does it?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I understand this has happened, but this doesn't really explain the losses for the year, does it?

It explains a large part of it. Insurance companies throw all of their premiums into investment accounts. Their operating budgets are based on the investment account profits. So if years ago, the government took out billions of dollars from those accounts, how much investment income is ICBC losing now? It's quite significant when you factor in compound earnings.