[ommoran]

(Cross-posted from ADVRider...)

Hello everyone,

I thought I would start a thread about today's announcements on ICBC's move to No-Fault insurance (no matter what the government wants to call it) starting in May. They in fact studiously avoided the words "no fault", as it seems to have a very negative connotation in BC, frankly because I think it is misunderstood. I know I have issues with the government hand in the pocket of ICBC repeatedly over the years, but that sort of political stuff isn't the point of this announcement (or my post).

They did talk explicitly about a few things. One, they hammered pretty hard on the plaintiff bar, vilifying them and accusing them for increased costs - and, in part, they are correct. I will want to see what the bill says, but it looks like the right to sue has been entirely eliminated except in very rare circumstances. That's a very high bar - I've worked in No-Fault jurisdictions as a claims adjuster before, and the bar was certainly quite high, but no right to sue (as it seems here) is extreme. I may be wrong about that, time will tell.

The increased benefits is a very good thing in exchange. Weekly indemnity for the time you miss from work, paying your therapy bills - all to be expected under such a system. A limit of 7.5M per accident is actually also very high (to go with the high bar for a lawsuit) and should be able to help even the most seriously injured.

What I am interested in seeing - and no one talked about - is cost reduction due to the efficiency of resolving liability. True no-fault systems mean that one adjuster doesn't call another adjuster to hash out who is at fault in a simple rear-ender. There is a chart which outlines liability in these cases, and you get faster service and repairs. I think this will be very interesting as the cost savings are huge.

Ready? And this is where the ICBC Bashers will start! GO!

 

[larolco]

I just finished reading the Sun's article on today's announcement when your post appeared. I am hopeful, but fully expect an all-on assault on the initiative by lawyers. I think, this time, the will of the electorate may be on the government's side, so long as the benefits are realized, and the lawyers will be left out in the cold. That certainly seems the way the NDP is betting.

What I do know is that my V-Strom is sitting, uninsured, for the first time in its 14-year life. And I just reinsured my pickup for about $75 more than it cost me last year. And my wife, who is still recovering from a crash last year, can't get an ICBC adjuster to return calls or emails. The way things currently are is not sustainable and should have been redesigned years ago. If they don't get it right this time, that's probably it for ICBC.

Now, the really important question: Will they also redesign how motorcycle premiums are calculated (by engine size)?

 

[ommoran]

Sorry that your wife is suffering from the now infamous no-call-back problem. She's also likely on her 5th adjuster at this point. It's sad. I'm proud of what I do (I don't work for ICBC), but it wold be hard to be an ICBC employee.

If ICBC were smart, they would move from where they are now (749cc or 750+cc) and have a tiered system with more levels. Up to 300, then 500, then 750, then 1000, then 1200, then 1500 - or something. And while they are at it, force the goddamned electric scooters to be licenced like a gas scooter or a moped. They can avoid licences, that's fine. But get them off the damned sidewalks and stop them from parking right up by convenience stores. Sheesh.

 

[ToothDocJay]

I live the dream.

The dream in which ICBC one day offers "one plate, multiple bike" insurance and I ensure my bikes year around instead of cherry picking and forcasting good months.

 

[larolco]

I live the dream.

The dream in which ICBC one day offers "one plate, multiple bike" insurance and I ensure my bikes year around instead of cherry picking and forcasting good months.

Now is the time to begin lobbying, it would seem. Motorcycle "fleet" insurance is a good idea.

As for engine size insurance calculations, I think they ought to go away altogether. Instead, calculate based on risk factor alone. No one can tell me the 1000cc engine in my V-Strom is the same as the 1000cc engine in a Gixxer. If you want to base it on engine, you should look not at CC, but HP and bike type the engine is in. Factor in as well rider experience/training, etc. Differentiating rates based on displacement alone is horseshit. ICBC provides breaks on vehicles with anti-theft devices; what about riders who wear ATGATT?

Anyway, we're small potatoes compared to what's being announced today.