ICBC expected to lose $890M this year

[logicbomb]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/icbc-expected-to-lose-890m-this-year-1.4918548

B.C.'s public auto insurer is facing bigger than expected financial losses this year, and Attorney General David Eby warns the government will need to make even more changes to how ICBC operates.

Eby said second quarter results for the 2018-2019 financial year suggest ICBC is set to lose $890 million this year, following a $1.3-billion net loss in 2017-2018.

"It is now clear that this government needs to look for even more ways — beyond what is already planned — to further reduce the escalating cost of claims," Eby said in a news release.

I have had numerous discussions with internal employees and they echo a common sentiment. Most injury claims are bogus and fraudulent plus you are seeing the increase in many staged/intentional collisions. These employees all suspect this on their day-to-day work but lack any sort of resources and time to really investigate due to the shear number of claims.

The payout for minor soft tissue injuries is insane. A colleague I know got into a minor fender bender at 5km/hr and gets 55k for whiplash and apparent leg discomfort.

A major issue not even being discussed in any article is the number of licenses being illegally obtained and the increase in the number of unlicensed drivers in the city. Second hand source, but drivers licensing fraud has dramatically risen the past 3 years.

ICBC's days are very well numbered. A public insurance company with a tort system no longer works. It's time to move to a no fault system and privatize this entity asap.

[misher]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/icbc-expected-to-lose-890m-this-year-1.4918548



I have had numerous discussions with internal employees and they echo a common sentiment. Most injury claims are bogus and fraudulent plus you are seeing the increase in many staged/intentional collisions. These employees all suspect this on their day-to-day work but lack any sort of resources and time to really investigate due to the shear number of claims.

The payout for minor soft tissue injuries is insane. A colleague I know got into a minor fender bender at 5km/hr and gets 55k for whiplash and apparent leg discomfort.

A major issue not even being discussed in any article is the number of licenses being illegally obtained and the increase in the number of unlicensed drivers in the city. Second hand source, but drivers licensing fraud has dramatically risen the past 3 years.

ICBC's days are very well numbered. A public insurance company with a tort system no longer works. It's time to move to a no fault system and privatize this entity asap.

Thumbs up for privatization.

[fredinno]

Someone explain why ICBC was formed as a public entity in the first place?

[casper]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Someone explain why ICBC was formed as a public entity in the first place?

It is from a time when there was perception the banks and insurance companies were all based in eastern Canada and treating residents in the west poorly. The NDP stepped in and created it. It is now time for the NDP to fix the problem by privatizing ICBC.

SGI is Saskatchewan is the other government own insurance operation. However it appears to be still be effective. Sound management of an insurance company involves diversifying risk by holding different types of policies and in different parts of the country (or world). Something SGI does.

[Tetsuo]

Wasn't it also created to ensure that rural BC residents could get proper insurance? I remember someone telling me that once (grew up in Northern BC in the 50s and 60s, some private insurers wouldn't insure, thus leading to many driving without insurance in these parts)

I did appreciate ICBC growing up as a young male (higher auto risk), for the fact that they didn't dictate rates based on age/gender directly

[Dengler Avenue]

Can someone remind me what’s the problem with driving without insurance again (other than the current legal implications)?

If feasible, why don’t we make driving insurance optional like some of the states do?

[s211]

Originally Posted by casper

The NDP stepped in and created it. It is now time for the NDP to fix the problem by privatizing ICBC.

That will never ever ever ever happen on the NDP's watch. I'm pretty sure they're already on record that they won't privatize ICBC.

Far too many unionized jobs to protect there.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Can someone remind me what’s the problem with driving without insurance again (other than the current legal implications)?

If feasible, why don’t we make driving insurance optional like some of the states do?

The legal implications are why. Most people are stupid and would opt out of insurance. Then they'd get in an accident and be run into debt.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by s211

That will never ever ever ever happen on the NDP's watch. I'm pretty sure they're already on record that they won't privatize ICBC.

Far too many unionized jobs to protect there.

The BC Liberals had 15 years to privatize ICBC. Despite promising at various points to do so, they couldn't resist keeping it and raiding the cookie jar. Even now Wilkinson can't bring himself to say they would privatize. He needs to man up and just commit a BC Liberal gov't to doing it. If for no other reason than to make a clear policy difference with the NDP. Just follow the example of US states that have mandatory minimum vehicle insurance.

I've had no problems with ICBC. Because I drive a lot, I've had two cars written off in accidents and one BMW that was a fender bender magnet. None of them were my fault and I always found ICBC pleasant and efficient to deal with. However what seemed to work before doesn't seem to work as well now. Maybe the problem now is there are so many now who bring with them the feeling that defrauding the government is OK, if you don't get caught.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Can someone remind me what’s the problem with driving without insurance again (other than the current legal implications)?

If feasible, why don’t we make driving insurance optional like some of the states do?

The problem is if you damage another persons vehicle or worse put them in the hospital. We expect the drivers insurance company to be responsible.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog

The legal implications are why. Most people are stupid and would opt out of insurance. Then they'd get in an accident and be run into debt.

And that's a problem because...?

Are you forced to get house insurance?

Originally Posted by whatnext

The BC Liberals had 15 years to privatize ICBC. Despite promising at various points to do so, they couldn't resist keeping it and raiding the cookie jar. Even now Wilkinson can't bring himself to say they would privatize. He needs to man up and just commit a BC Liberal gov't to doing it. If for no other reason than to make a clear policy difference with the NDP. Just follow the example of US states that have mandatory minimum vehicle insurance.

This (https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/12/27/BCRail/) is probably a clue as to why.

[GMD]

Originally Posted by fredinno

And that's a problem because...?

Are you forced to get house insurance?


This (https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/12/27/BCRail/) is probably a clue as to why.

Yes, of course you are forced to get house insurance, at least if you want a mortgage.

The problems with ICBC are less to do with public v private, and more to do with mismanagement by the Liberals in their long term in power. Most notably, every other jurisdiction had moved to limit escalating claim costs and awards but the Liberals did nothing.

Logicbomb correctly noted that a full tort system no longer works and called for no-fault insurance at the top of the thread, but it is not a public v private issue - every province, the private and public ones both had already moved away from a pure tort system, but it was only with the NDP taking power that B.C. will now do so as well (via legislation planned to take effect next fall that will move the system to a no-fault 'lite' system) and cap claims of the sort that Logicbomb correctly notes were out of control.

A public system has a number of advantages vs. a private one, notably, less administration, no marketing expenses and the ability to take a whole-system view (as in when ICBC funds safety improvement road projects) but there are downsides as well, in particular, the potential for political interference (e.g. Liberals raiding the cookie jar as whatnext notes) and the usual challenges you can get with a monopoly that isn't kept on top of (bureaucracy, slowness to change, etc.)

Over time, there doesn't seem to a lot in it, although the closer you get to apples to apples comparisons, the more it seems that public systems generally have a slight edge (due to lower costs).

[misher]

Originally Posted by GMD

Yes, of course you are forced to get house insurance, at least if you want a mortgage.

The problems with ICBC are less to do with public v private, and more to do with mismanagement by the Liberals in their long term in power. Most notably, every other jurisdiction had moved to limit escalating claim costs and awards but the Liberals did nothing.

Logicbomb correctly noted that a full tort system no longer works and called for no-fault insurance at the top of the thread, but it is not a public v private issue - every province, the private and public ones both had already moved away from a pure tort system, but it was only with the NDP taking power that B.C. will now do so as well (via legislation planned to take effect next fall that will move the system to a no-fault 'lite' system) and cap claims of the sort that Logicbomb correctly notes were out of control.

A public system has a number of advantages vs. a private one, notably, less administration, no marketing expenses and the ability to take a whole-system view (as in when ICBC funds safety improvement road projects) but there are downsides as well, in particular, the potential for political interference (e.g. Liberals raiding the cookie jar as whatnext notes) and the usual challenges you can get with a monopoly that isn't kept on top of (bureaucracy, slowness to change, etc.)

Over time, there doesn't seem to a lot in it, although the closer you get to apples to apples comparisons, the more it seems that public systems generally have a slight edge (due to lower costs).

Well the NDP has a few years to turn things around. Hope it happens and if not then it’s likely privatization.

[ecbin]

Originally Posted by GMD

Yes, of course you are forced to get house insurance, at least if you want a mortgage.

The problems with ICBC are less to do with public v private, and more to do with mismanagement by the Liberals in their long term in power. Most notably, every other jurisdiction had moved to limit escalating claim costs and awards but the Liberals did nothing.

Logicbomb correctly noted that a full tort system no longer works and called for no-fault insurance at the top of the thread, but it is not a public v private issue - every province, the private and public ones both had already moved away from a pure tort system, but it was only with the NDP taking power that B.C. will now do so as well (via legislation planned to take effect next fall that will move the system to a no-fault 'lite' system) and cap claims of the sort that Logicbomb correctly notes were out of control.

A public system has a number of advantages vs. a private one, notably, less administration, no marketing expenses and the ability to take a whole-system view (as in when ICBC funds safety improvement road projects) but there are downsides as well, in particular, the potential for political interference (e.g. Liberals raiding the cookie jar as whatnext notes) and the usual challenges you can get with a monopoly that isn't kept on top of (bureaucracy, slowness to change, etc.)

Over time, there doesn't seem to a lot in it, although the closer you get to apples to apples comparisons, the more it seems that public systems generally have a slight edge (due to lower costs).

100% this - the discussion between private and public is a red herring. There are pros and cons with each one and it's far more about what type of insurance coverage is being provided and and how the rules work (eg. claim limits, minimums and maximums). Back in the day we made a choice to be very victim friendly with the style of coverage we made and now it's really hard to roll that back (it's debatable if it should be rolled back).

For the most part I think of car insurance as an utility which means I think of it as a public service and not something that should be run privately for the most part - I could see us go down the route where ICBC is the underlying provider and we let 3rd parties resell (imagine Virgin Mobile reselling Bell/Rogers) and provide value adds on top of it.

[VarBreStr18]

Publicly run service is seldom efficiently run. I have seen ICBC employees grossly abuse their excessively allotted lunch allowance. They order red wine and fancy items for lunch. But that is just one indication of how they mismanage money.
I do think there should be some proactive ways to minimize expenses, such as wide scale pedestrian safety/accident prevention education. There are many pedestrian accident claims. No doubt many are due to driver carelessness, but how many of you agree that pedestrians bear some responsibilities when they cross the road? I have seen pedestrians never even look up from their phone (with ear phones on of course) the whole time when they cross busy streets. And they sure take their sweet time. Pedestrians should clear the street in their quickest possible manner even though when walk signal is on. Pedestrians
bear responsibility to be seen especially in unlit intersections. Elderly people with their walkers should at least taught to check the supposedly clear lanes. Don't forget when you decide to dart across the street in the last second, the right turn vehicle also thinking to catch a right turn at the same moment. Budget some money in pedestrian accident prevention education can go a long ways in reducing future claims. Just as in health , we take responsibility to look after our own health, crossing road defensively is one of them.

[misher]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

Publicly run service is seldom efficiently run. I have seen ICBC employees grossly abuse their excessively allotted lunch allowance. They order red wine and fancy items for lunch. But that is just one indication of how they mismanage money.
I do think there should be some proactive ways to minimize expenses, such as wide scale pedestrian safety/accident prevention education. There are many pedestrian accident claims. No doubt many are due to driver carelessness, but how many of you agree that pedestrians bear some responsibilities when they cross the road? I have seen pedestrians never even look up from their phone (with ear phones on of course) the whole time when they cross busy streets. And they sure take their sweet time. Pedestrians should clear the street in their quickest possible manner even though when walk signal is on. Pedestrians
bear responsibility to be seen especially in unlit intersections. Elderly people with their walkers should at least taught to check the supposedly clear lanes. Don't forget when you decide to dart across the street in the last second, the right turn vehicle also thinking to catch a right turn at the same moment. Budget some money in pedestrian accident prevention education can go a long ways in reducing future claims. Just as in health , we take responsibility to look after our own health, crossing road defensively is one of them.

My friend pointed out that in China the drivers would just hit dumb pedestrians but once they come to Canada they act like they are kings and often cross without looking. Do schools still teach kids to look both ways before crossing?

Looking at your phone while crossing should be illegal similar to how it iis while driving.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

My friend pointed out that in China the drivers would just hit dumb pedestrians but once they come to Canada they act like they are kings and often cross without looking. Do schools still teach kids to look both ways before crossing?

Looking at your phone while crossing should be illegal similar to how it iis while driving.

Yes, they do, people are just dumb.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by misher

My friend pointed out that in China the drivers would just hit dumb pedestrians but once they come to Canada they act like they are kings and often cross without looking. Do schools still teach kids to look both ways before crossing?

Looking at your phone while crossing should be illegal similar to how it iis while driving.

But this is Vancouver/Canada, you cannot get away with it even if you vehicle barely touch a pedestrian. This is why tax payers dinged with $890 million deficits. Not to mention some staged accidents to sought compensation. That is why starting recently I get my wife to direct my car when I back out of busy parking lots .... watch out for Christmas shopping season.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by VarBreStr18

But this is Vancouver/Canada, you cannot get away with it even if you vehicle barely touch a pedestrian. This is why tax payers dinged with $890 million deficits. Not to mention some staged accidents to sought compensation. That is why starting recently I get my wife to direct my car when I back out of busy parking lots .... watch out for Christmas shopping season.

This is why dashcam sales are beginning to sore. Cover your ass and buy one.

I drive around for my job and have to go to all corners of the region. I have had drivers cut me off then brake check me, pedestrians dart out at intersections when I have ROW and other shady bullshit occur. This tort system has bred a culture of lies/crookedness in this city. It's leading to utter lunacy in the region. Hit-and-runs are becoming more commonplace because of what's at stake.

The secrets out. Want an extended vacation along with 50k? Simply brake check someone on an onramp or intersection and simply say a hazard came up.

I was at False Creek back in August this year and witnessed a Motor Vehicle Accident where a car got rear ended (speed less than 10km/hr). 5 minutes later, you see people get into the car while I was talking to the guy in the other car. I thought they were just going to drive off, but they remained in there until the police arrived. I informed the police that those 3 other passengers were not in the car at the time of the accident but he told me to inform ICBC of this. Did so, and was informed that an adjuster would call me back. It was not until earlier this month when I followed up and gave them my information/contact information. The adjuster finally called me back and I gave them my accounts....turns out, these phantom passengers had injury claims.

[VarBreStr18]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

This is why dashcam sales are beginning to sore. Cover your ass and buy one.

I drive around for my job and have to go to all corners of the region. I have had drivers cut me off then brake check me, pedestrians dart out at intersections when I have ROW and other shady bullshit occur. This tort system has bred a culture of lies/crookedness in this city. It's leading to utter lunacy in the region. Hit-and-runs are becoming more commonplace because of what's at stake.

The secrets out. Want an extended vacation along with 50k? Simply brake check someone on an onramp or intersection and simply say a hazard came up.

I was at False Creek back in August this year and witnessed a Motor Vehicle Accident where a car got rear ended (speed less than 10km/hr). 5 minutes later, you see people get into the car while I was talking to the guy in the other car. I thought they were just going to drive off, but they remained in there until the police arrived. I informed the police that those 3 other passengers were not in the car at the time of the accident but he told me to inform ICBC of this. Did so, and was informed that an adjuster would call me back. It was not until earlier this month when I followed up and gave them my information/contact information. The adjuster finally called me back and I gave them my accounts....turns out, these phantom passengers had injury claims.

Thanks for your eyewitness account of yet another staged accident. I also own a dashcam , but dashcam only record what happens in the front. Does nothing to culprits that stage an accident at the rear. I read there are pretend victims who got hit when you are pulling out. Also in busy parking lots , there more more than one vehicle backing up at the same time. I still think have a partner (hopefully you have a passenger) to direct you until you are safely backed up gives added peace of mind.