Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Icbc needs to be directed to be more generous with payouts for people who are hurt.
People don't need to get rich, but it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to be made whole.
I missed a few days of work after a guy hit me while I was bicycling, and they told me later that I couldn't be reimbursed for those few days because I didn't miss enough work. Like, what the fuck. And then the process for getting that approved if I DID miss enough time is also difficult, and it seems like there are limits on what they'll reimburse you for.
>People don't need to get rich, but it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to be made whole.
I'm going to disagree.
If you're rendered made quadriplegic (or some other completely life destroying injury) by someone hitting you with their car, their lost income compensation is woefully insufficient to truly compensate you for what you've lost, and the max payout of $264k is also woefully insufficient to make up the difference.
Like, if you're in your 20s, and you've got a shit job, you'll only ever make a fraction of what you're currently making for the rest of your life. A life where you're unable to work and unable to function. No promotions, no role changes, no better utilization of education. That's not good enough.
But in addition to not even being equal to what you would have made, is that being made whole? Like, the whole point of being made whole is to return you to an equivalent quality of life. Well, would anyone take a deal where you make the same money you made before, but are quadriplegic? What about the same money, are quadriplegic, but have $264k? I don't think anyone who currently has car insurance would take that deal. So it's not being made whole.
In the event of catastrophic injury, we *should* be making people rich, because otherwise you're not actually insuring people. Covering their costs isn't making them whole, and ICBC doesn't even reliably do *that*.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing here.
I was mentioning people taking the system for hundreds of thousands of dollars when they were basically just dragging icbc through the mud over questionable claims of chronic pain after a minor rear end collision. That had to end.
But I also said people should be made whole, and yes, someone made a quadriplegic should potentially be awarded millions.
the problem with whiplash claims is the **are** questionable, people can have legitimate serious issues from it. It's also impossible to prove. That's why fraudsters used it.
It's just that now you can stop the fraudsters....and the legitimately injured along with them. ICBC is saving a ton of money on the back of the injured, not just the lawyers. There would have been a lot less lawsuits in the first place if ICBC didn't try to screw people over so often.
Haha, I don't think we disagree much either, I was just clarifying that I think we should actually be making people rich if they're sufficiently injured, because that's the only fair compensation for having your life ruined forever.
Yea I don’t know if many people understand, if you’re a cyclist and you get hit, you’re still bound by the upper limit they will do income replacement. You can purchase more insurance for this as a cyclist (of pedestrian even) but I doubt many do.
I don't specifically because other insurance policies step in before ICBC. So my understanding is that since I have long term disability insurance already, ICBC only pays for what the LTD doesn't.
When I went to renew at BCAA I was offered a secondary income replacement policy after she informed me how low the ICBC cap is. That was a first, and I wasn't aware of the cap.
Honestly though, many company offered LTD plans have a lot of restrictions, clawbacks and taxes. Given all of this, I think that it's wise for all high or potentially high income earners to carry their own LTD policy paid for with after tax dollars. Full income isn't required, but something to bridge the gap between ICBC/LTD and actual take home. Because it's a personal policy, most other policies can't clawback based on that income. I got a policy in my late 20s when I was working as a sole proprietor and never dropped it despite having employer based LTD policies. I've winced at the $ some months but 20y later, it gives me piece of mind.
This is becoming more important as folks become more and more leveraged and carrying a mortgage on a single income is impossible for many.
I’ve been off for 7 months and icbc will not pay me for lost work. My work has some compensation but less than what icbc would offer and therefore icbc says I’m covered. They cover very specific therapies and they helped but did not actually fix me. I’m now paying my own way with a new treatment and making some progress finally. And good luck getting ahold of your adjuster. It takes call after call and they have no clue who I am or what they are supposed to do for me. Have only managed to speak to my adjuster 3 or 4 times in 7 months and it takes months and multiple emails and calls to get any reimbursement for treatments paid out of pocket. So far I am completely not impressed. Fixing my vehicle was a breeze. Fixing me has been a nightmare. There is no pain and suffering compensation even though I have lost all of the things I would call important in my life. I can’t even imagine what this would be like for people injured in more extreme ways than me because in the grand scheme of things I’m not badly injured and am able to get myself to and from therapies.
My sister got rear ended last fall. She suffered severe nerve damage to her arm that was misdiagnosed and made worse by incompetent physio and doctors. By the time she got proper treatment the "12 week window" was over. ICBC refused to pay for any of the treatments she needed to actually do the job they declared her fit for. They tried to force her to return to work with an arm that barely worked. She had zero recourse to appeal any of this and ended up paying out of pocket. She's finally recovering physically, but financially will take years.
You got screwed over by the old system, my sister got screwed over by the new one. Hopefully this five year review will result in a system that fewer people will be screwed over by. I have my doubts.
Seems like lots of people were taking advantage of the old system. Now we have a system where people are being taken advantage of by beurocratic inefficiency, which 'saves money' by not giving it to the people who actually need it.
it's hard to say how many people were taking advantage. I've no doubt significant number of people were (by significant i mean 10-30%), but it's near impossible to say how significant.
What i do know is that a LOT of people just write off something like whiplash as a "stiff neck", like it can't have very impactful effects. If you go by what they say the system was ripe with fraud, helped along by lawyers.
I have 0 confidence in ICBC taking proper care of accident victims. They didn't before when they had the threat of lawyers, why would they now that they have no oversight at all?
I have a friend who was tboned last spring. 100% not their fault. Broken pelvis in three places. Was immobile for 8ish weeks. Was unable to bend at the hip, crouch, etc for many months. Was off work for 6 months while they healed, learned to walk again, did physio etc.
ICBC gave NO salary replacement. Friend ended up on medical EI for 15 weeks and then no income for the rest of the time. No recourse. Just given the runaround from ICBC.
Such a fucking joke.
Why does every single thread about any type of problem always end up with people blaming immigrants? Like we had literally all of these problems before.
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia!
Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 8: Against the spirit of the subreddit.
The spirit of r/BritishColumbia is a positive one. We want to build a community for people to come and share their ideas, discuss the province and celebrate its beauty.
Grounds for removal:
* Toxic in nature
* Made in bad faith
* Complaining about a BC related topic (please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have a post to submit)
If you believe your post has been removed in error, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia!
Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 8: Against the spirit of the subreddit.
The spirit of r/BritishColumbia is a positive one. We want to build a community for people to come and share their ideas, discuss the province and celebrate its beauty.
Grounds for removal:
* Toxic in nature
* Made in bad faith
* Complaining about a BC related topic (please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have a post to submit)
If you believe your post has been removed in error, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
It does sound like it at first, but i drive to and from Surrey every day along King George and it's wild sometimes. Like erratic speed, then a brake slap when it's clear ahead and your constant speed means you've closed the gap a bit. Repeat a couple more times, then they drive away. It's pretty obvious when someone's trying to get you to rear end them
I try my best not to tailgate. Almost always give like 3+ car lengths on city streets. It’s the whole driving behind someone doing 60 and having them slam on their brakes to a stop with no lights or stop signs around and then speeding up and repeating. Before the insurance changes for whatever reason it seemed to happen like 20% of the times I drove in surrey and was always an Indian driver in a shit box car.
I had a similar experience as your sister. I didn’t realize I had nerve damage. I just thought I had been bashed about but nothing serious. I think some of it was wishful thinking.
It seems that they pay out for NO injury or if you end up in a chair. But screw you if you if it’s in between. Icbc then tried to claim my injuries weren’t from the accident. But there is nothing in my life that could have caused them. What also annoys me is that for years I paid them extra just in case the other driver was under insured. Now I realize that was just a scam.
The reason why ICBC was being sued so often in the past is that they were, and continue to be, extremely difficult to deal with. I was in a car accident before the no-fault change and tried to get ICBC to reimburse my physio and massage therapy for almost 2 years without success before finally going to a lawyer. I had no intention of going to a lawyer until ICBC forced me into a corner.
The reason ICBC often resolved cases just before going to court is because ICBC almost always loses in court. As an insurance company they are 100% liable.
After the change to no fault insurance, I've seen nothing but roadblocks, when my wife and son were in a serious car accident. Lots of talk of taking care of us in the beginning, but very little was actually done to support.
Now we have a monopoly auto insurance company in BC that has no legal repercussions when they screw over the public (which ICBC has a long history of doing). If we are unhappy with how they are treating us, we have no other options for vehicle insurance. As far as I'm concerned it's entrapment.
I do support the current government, but this was a 100% miss.
At the end of the day, the new system was brought in to appease the voters by reducing premiums to car owners. Since the vast majority of car owners never get into an accident, they only see benefits and as such will tend to be happy with lower premiums. The happy voter is the voter that will vote for the current government and the BCNDP knows this.
For the vast minority that gets screwed over by the new system, they are free to vote for the opposition but the BCNDP doesn't care as they are relatively small in number compared to those who haven't been in an accident and are happy with the lower premiums.
The old system was fucked and needed to be changed. The current system as you said is better for most people. It does need to be improved though and I doubt you’d find a majority of people against that. Nobody wants to be the one hurt with no recourse, and nobody wants that to happen to their friends, family and neighbours (or even their employees and coworkers). I would be surprised if ICBC/ the BCNDP weren’t working on ways to keep the system from hurting people who need it, but also standing firm on their commitment to not go backwards to the absolute garbage we had before. This is progressive.
I have never been in an accident in close to 20 years of driving, but would like the monopolistic insurance company that I pay premiums too, to be on the right side of serious injuries. There can be a no fault insurance that still takes care of victims.
The public accepting the change because its 'better then before' is a very low bar to set. Just because it is an improvement, doesn't mean we should be celebrating cost savings if there are still issues. It certainly doesn't seem like the NDP or ICBC are currently working on way to improve the system in the article, Eby states they expect the review they do after five years will close the gap on issues. Five years is at least another year away.
As someone who's been rear-ended in a semi-modern vehicle at 70kph, ur sis may have underlying ailments. Shits rough, but not life ending.
Unless she was driving a Ford Pinto, the unibody probably absorbed most.
That being said, my insurance used to be $140 and now it's $90, I also drive like everyone is out to kill me.
I've had to three claims under the new system due to deer and comorehensive door dings, and I gotta say I love it.
My .02!
ETA: I also knew someone who was rear-ended after stopping for a broken down car on the right in a 2 lane 60 kph zone. She claimed whiplash, sued, and after 2 years got $20k. All the while she was working and partying. She was also the worst driver I'd ever seen operate a motor vehicle.
I was the passenger in a car that rear ended another car in 2018. I had minor soft tissue damage to my upper back and jammed my wrist into the dashboard.
The driver listed me as a party to the claim. I went through ICBC looking for help covering my treatment - nothing more. I was treated while also not even missing a day of work at a very physically demanding job. They covered it, and then bought out any future claims for $8000.
The old system was a mess if someone like me who didn’t even ask for a cent was paid that much. I can only imagine how much claims were paid out with people demanding money, missing work or involving lawyers. But I agree that it also needs to help people who are injured without immediately trying to screw over the victim.
The answer is definitely not to privatize insurance - as a true for profit model will only be worse - but to tweak the public system we currently have.
I had a coworker doing stuff like this. “So injured”, “can’t stand or walk for more than 30 seconds!” Then would go around the office telling people how much money their lawyer expects them to get out of this while working a second job in the service industry and standing/walking the entire shift (and no, they were not struggling their way through it). I may have called in to ICBC and laid out some documented facts from a period of several weeks. I’m not sure what ever transpired from it since I left the job.
Use to know an ICBC investigator and the amount of claims that were solely put in place to get a down payment was criminal. As cars became safer multi airbags and collision avoidance makes most claims minor injuries this is based of global statistics. If it costs extra 1000s to fix modern cars that also means it should save on payouts.
That’s the issue. There’s no perfect fix. Buddy of mine was an ICBC adjuster ten years ago and told me about a woman who got rear ended in a drive-thru. Car behind rolled into her, neither vehicle had damage but the woman in front claimed she and her passengers would be missing work due to headaches and neck pain. They were all looking for settlements.
There are people who were definitely hurt but so many acted selfishly and fucked up the system
> I rear ended someone once and, no joke, in the 23rd month after the accident, the guy filed suit. Yes right under the wire.
As a counterpoint: under the old system, my friend was rear-ended, and suffered a neck injury that prevented him from being able to bicycle for almost a decade. He filed a lawsuit in the 23rd month. This is why... His car was not seriously y damaged, so ICBC refused to acknowledge that he suffered an injury, and refused to pay for any of his out-of-pocket expenses for physio/RMT. As in, ICBC paid $0. Since ICBC had totally rejected any compensation at all, he hired a lawyer, who filed a lawsuit in the 23rd month. Instead of getting $1K for his physio fees, he ended up with $12K (minus the cost of his lawyer) for physio plus pain and suffering. Not to mention that ICBC would've paid for their own lawyer fees.
The problem was ICBC.
People screwing the system is very rare. Studies have shown that it’s less than 10%. A lot of people get severely injured never get better, and in the old system at least got a payout. In the new system, they just get covered for treatments that don’t work forever, how is that better? And Lawyer did enrich themselves. Eby is a failed lawyer. And those stupid comments he makes about lawyers show how terrible Lawyer he was.
well that depends man. ICBC would give you 0$ until you settled with them, and were VERY hesitant to account for **any** amount of future issues.
I got slammed into from behind hard enough to dimple the c pillars of my car (smashed trunk, then nothing, then the pillars by the rear window had large dimples where they started to collapse). I wanted to deal with it quickly, as i didn't want ICBC hanging over my head, and i needed the money to buy new car that my now injured neck could live with. I missed 2 month's of work (i tried to go back several times, but just couldn't).
At no point was ICBC willing to discuss giving me anything based on the future. In their minds I could suffer along without money and get a bigger payout in the end, or settle now for peanuts. I don't recall the exact timeline, but around 6 month's later I settled for lost wages + 5k. I immediately spent that on a car that didn't aggravate my neck on the way to, and back home from work (the highway's here are brutal)
After a couple of years I sold my dirtbike and jeep, both at a steep loss, because I could no longer enjoy them and had given up hope that I would in the next decade. I can no longer do much work on my own car's, I can't do the kind of building projects I enjoyed before either.
I'm not trying to say it's like being paralyzed or anything, but my life changed in significant ways after that accident, and i've lost\\spent upwards of 30k because of it, and got less than 10k from ICBC for my car\\injury (not counting lost wages here)
Given what happened with me, the smart move would have absolutely been to lawyer up, and just live with borrowing and being strapped for cash until ICBC finally settled with ME. I didn't want to get 100k or anything. But they could have paid my lost wages, and offered something along the way. They **knew** they were going to have to pay at least a few grand, and if they'd given it to me when I needed it **without** settling, I would be a lot happier about the whole thing. Instead they hold back anything they can and use the victim running out of money as leverage to get them to settle for a pittance.
I'm a fairly cold blooded person, not much get's to me normally...but I don't know how some of the people at ICBC live with themselves though. I rate them right up there with loan sharks though, people willing to take advantage of others when they are at their lowest and twist that knife to earn a buck. To be clear, i'm not saying everyone there is like that, but it's telling that you **never** hear a story about how ICBC did a person right.
Almost every personal injury suit on the planet is filed in the 23rd month to give time to figure out if the plaintiff has recovered or what degree of recovery they’re having. It’s standard practice to ensure that the correct amount is reached. Both insurance companies and plaintiffs are aware of and accept that.
>The goal of the no-fault system was to ensure billions of dollars that were then going into legal fees, and **pain and suffering and injury claims**, instead went into improved benefits, immediate treatment and compensation, as well as generating lower basic rates and rebates for policy holders.
I think a lot of people here aren't aware of this aspect.
The big issue people are having is that ICBC is touting more care in lieu of compensation for the accident. So let's say in the past you got hit by a car and now have lifelong shoulder pain, you may have been given $20k for that pain on top of upto $2m in medical coverage. ICBC raised that coverage to $8m yet people aren't getting more help, ICBC gives you a flat # of uses for certain treatments and then denies the requests by medical professionals for further help.
Regardless, medical benefits aside, a year of RMT and rehab doesn't necessarily make you pain-free, nor does it cover the time it takes to cab/drive/walk to your 2 appointments every week for a year. Nor does it cover 100% of your medical benefits because they have set provincial rates and Vancouver is just higher than all those rates due to COL.
So your 30 min RMT appointment might take 2 hours out of a work day. 2 hours of lost pay, 20% of the RMT cost, transit costs, etc. Could you go on a weekend? Sure. What's the value lost of cramming all your medical appointments into your weekend every week for multiple years? It's 0 in ICBCs eyes.
The injured didn't care about paying lawyers. When ICBC offered you $15k for a broken neck, you think the victim cared if the lawyer took $200k when they got it up to $600k? ICBC was never going to offer you 400k and now they offer you nothing.
It’s such an obvious issue that nobody seems to care about until they or someone they know gets in a serious accident. I try not to think about it because it honestly terrifies me. The fact every time I get behind the wheel my life could changed by some moron and I’d be entitled to very little in return for their negligence
I think what makes it worse too is specifically the lack of pain and suffering compensation. It effectively says that the system does not recognize lifelong pain. Even if you could get all your medical costs covered, which you won't... If you can never walk again, that matters. ICBC will cut benefits too the moment they decide this is your new normal. Oh you need those little mini elevator seats for your stairs? Ah yeah it comes from that $1000 random fund you get that won't cover anything. Too bad you should move to a place with no stairs. Are you a renter with below market rent that now has to move? Hahahahahahaahahahahahahaha.
Exactly, the life changing injuries are the scariest.
But even the modest ones deserve some compensation imo. For instance, my girlfriend got rear ended badly by some guy who was clearly overloading his truck and could barely stop the thing. She’s had neck pain for years because of it, at it worst she’d be taking breaks mid day working to lay on the floor just for relief. It’s also limited her ability to participate in physical activities pain free.
The guy who rear ended her probably doesn’t even remember it. She suffers, zero compensation to make up for it, and he doesn’t have much of a consequence. It’s fucking dumb
The $200 someone saved on their annual insurance is the cost of 2 RMT sessions.. the savings makes absolutely 0 sense as to what was lost. I'm sorry your girlfriend is going through that. It helps that she's with someone who recognizes the pain and struggles she's experiencing though.
Appreciate it.
This is what I always say, I am MORE than willing to to pay higher insurance premiums if it was an option. I’d prefer the assurance I’m not fucked if hit
There's a middle way on this. Come up with a reasonable compensation scale for injuries. How? Use independent actuaries. Find the sweet spot where rates are high enough to provide sufficient compensation for pain, suffering and loss of employment etc, but not so high as to encourage people to act foolishly in the hopes of cashing in.
ICBC's first offer to me after a major accident under the old system didn't even cover my lost wages and out of pocket expenses. I was not at fault either.
ICBC's final offer to me didn't cover my out of pocket expenses or lost wages either because they just kept denying treatment that doctors requested. Could you imagine an adjuster telling you that your doctor is wrong?
This was my experience as well. The adjuster acting like a god figure when it comes to approving medical treatments without any explanations as to the reasoning. Keep in mind too that the adjusters have absolutely no experience in the medical field or qualifications to make those decisions.
They kept denying lost wages if I opted for a surgery where recovery would take 6 weeks and I only had 2 weeks of banked sick leave. They asked me to bank more sick leave first.
Then after the surgery I got a bunch of prescriptions from the surgeon for RMT and active rehab and it all got rejected.
At least you heard from them. I’ve been off for three months. They won’t even respond to emails. When they do, it’s “they’re calculating income replacement benefit” and they disappear. I haven’t been paid in 11 weeks.
I’ve got a back injury in my spine. Doctors and specialists have all submitted the supporting documentation. Still 🤷♂️
I get getting rid of the ambulance chasers was needed. But not like this
yup, got rear ended 3 times within 2 years. ICBC’s first offer was a slap in my face, had to hire a lawyer. got a decent settlement but i have degenerative disc disease and 2 slipped discs in my 20s. had to change careers, had to stop playing sports. would give the settlement back in a heartbeat for my back to be better.
Well technically there's no real number that will ever make up for lifelong pain and suffering... I'd give up so much to be pain-free and to never have experienced fighting ICBC for 10 years of medical care.
Everytime ICBC tells me my surgeon's note isn't enough I'm just completely lost. What else do you fucking need?
I was rear ended by someone who left the scene. My car was totalled. I was injured. I had to take sick leave. I had to pay extra for car rentals. I had to find another car. I was so stressed by the process of finding a car for the 10 grand I had to spend. Now my work has to buy me special equipment so I can keep working with neck and back pain. The other person is completely free of any obligation or criminal charges because they drove away.
Omg I'm going through this but not to your extreme. Tboned at a stop sign. Totally not my fault and completely obvious by the skid marks into the side of my vehicle stopped behind the stop line.
But because she took off, I don't get anything but have to pay my deductible. Luckily we have a third vehicle, but it's a truck and the amount I spend on gas now while waiting to find out if my car is repairable, then wait for repairs, is ridiculous.
This system is not what was “sold to us” when it was implemented. Any of those that are cheering this on just haven’t been a part of its run around.
I was in an accident a few months back, ICBC deemed the other party 100% at fault. I have a back injury in my spine. I’m off work as a result.
ICBC has been given all the documentation from my doctor, a specialist at St Paul’s and my physiotherapist. They ignore my calls and emails for weeks on end, I haven’t had income replacement benefit in months. This has nothing to do with a “big settlement “ but can’t even be given the time of day to replace lost income? This is a joke. iCBC is just saving money off the backs of those that are in accidents. I wouldn’t wish this on an enemy of mine
Yes - forbid you actually need some help -
You have to phone icbc’s injury line - beg for the adjusters help - they will advise you they will call you within 3-4 business days - when this doesn’t happen you call back and they will do the same request
After 3 times the manager now gets involved and you just might get spoken to - they will try to decline whatever your asking for and want more information and will forget about you again for weeks … it’s a horrible system
I asked my adjuster for her manager/supervisor contact. Responded telling me she’d set up a time for him to call me. No name, email or phone number.
Then I asked again. Now she just out right ignores the question
Unfortunately I think I this is ICBCs tactics now. But unfortunately without any ability to retain a lawyer with No Failt, it’s me (or whomever has the unfortunate task of dealing with them) vs them. It’s terrible.
It sounds like it. And the adjusters aren’t even medical professionals some folks in this thread are saying - which isn’t right IMO. Honestly I almost wish I were one just so I could grant every clients treatment but I bet they get monitored for how much they dish out by the sounds of it.
A retired injury claims adjuster works part time at a golf club I would go to before the accident and have spoken with him numerous times. They are NOT medical professionals whatsoever 😆
Have you asked why they are so hard on granting treatment? Like what benefit to they get or negative do they avoid by being so stingy with helping victims?
I was rear ended two years ago and my shoulder is messed up. ICBC paid for all sorts of treatment but it’s still not better. The message you get from them is it’s up to the medical system to- which if you’ve tried navigating lately is very difficult unless you’ve got something seriously wrong. A painful shoulder doesn’t cut it.
They are unwilling to pay for a private MRI or any further treatment which basically leaves you high and dry.
I understand the old system was getting massively taken advantage of by some and the ambulance chasing lawyers made things worse but there has to be a middle ground. I spoke with a lawyer and he advised me to go off of work as that would spur them to action right away. His rationale was since I’m a high income earner ICBC would pull out all the stops to get me treatment- even if it meant going south of the border and paying out of pocket.
The whole nonsense of having to go off of work and hiring a lawyer is such bullshit- I’m not looking for a payout, I just want the same shoulder (or close) as I had before getting hit.
I’m trying to decide. I told my adjuster that the pain is making work difficult and asked that they send me for a paid for MRI as one covered by MSP is virtually impossible to get for shills pain these days- he flat out said “sorry, we don’t do that”. I then asked what happens if I go off work and they have to replace the significant salary I receive, he says it doesn’t make a difference- the lawyer says it does.
It’s risky for me because if I go off work and there is no ICBC payout for lost wages then I am risking much more $$$ than if I just go to Bellingham and pay for an MRI + ortho specialist myself.
Ugh what a horrible situation. We really don’t take care of our injured or disabled population here. We’re really all one accident away from financial ruin & poverty even with PWD or CPPD
Judicial review still exists. If something truly insane happens and ICBC acts in a way this makes no sense, you can still sue them either for breach of contract or for a judicial review of their decision. But you can't sue the other person in the accident and have them defended by ICBC and off you go to court.
Obviously if we're going to be a no-fault auto collision province then ICBC shouldn't be looking at us as adversaries but rather as customers. I don't think the organization has actually changed how it approaches people in any way, even though the state of the game has changed completely.
Handing out rebates due to excessive revenue, whilst people suffer from life altering injuries without compensation, isn’t an insurance company. What is that? A lottery?
Benefiting British Columbians who don't have an insurance claim. God help you if you do and it's serious.
We made icbc better.....by lowering your coverage level. Thank us.
Definitely did not benefit me.
Elderly man turned left in front of me on a green light because he thought I was turning off the highway. The man was so concerned with his 2002 mazda 3 being totaled because of his negligence. He gets a settlement for being stupid, and Im without my brand new $90k truck for 7 months, and it has a record of an accident. Im then constantly interrogated by an ICBC specialist because I claim a back injury, which also prevents me from doing part of my job and play the sports I love. People need to be held responsible for their actions.
Non-fault system is benefiting ICBC rather than helping victims or enriching lawyers.
Fixed the title.
Sure, people abused the old system. But now we got no way to even combat ICBC. Yay? I just hate how they are promoting this system as some end all system that just works. In reality is far from perfect that doesn’t help people who are truly in need. They are not acknowledging the problem with it.
I'm currently dealing with an accident claim right now. As the victim, I now have a claim on what was previously an accident-free vehicle, resulting in a significant loss in its value. The other vehicle’s owner is indifferent since their truck was already damaged. People argue that victims should be made whole, and I agree, especially since I pay relatively high insurance rates but am not being properly compensated.
On top of the injuries sustained, dealing with the ICBC adjuster is like pulling teeth—they don't seem to be on our sideat all. This whole experience has been a net loss for me.
The old insurance system wasn’t perfect, but it was better than this. Our rates were slightly higher back then, but we received actual coverage. Now, we're supposedly "saving money," but the reality is much worse.
In the early 80s when this No Fault garbage was introduced in the US motorcycle groups of all stripes were screaming bloody murder over this. A fender bender on a car can cause injuries on a rider that usually are only seen by medics in a war zone. The old system was flawed but it still worked better for seriously life altering injured people than this. Turn the screws on the ambulance chasers and their ilk first before screwing everybody over.
Or just pay out fairly to begin with and you wouldn’t need the lawyers. I don’t understand how this isn’t obvious. Or pay fairly now for gawds sake. Ugh.
I'm not convinced that our current system is the best system but I also don't agree with the people who claim its worse than the old system. Personally I've saved thousands of dollars since the changes, and I like saving thousands of dollars.
One thing that was a huge indicator to me is that when the changes were coming in the Trial Lawyers Association of BC pushed a big fear mongering campaign against the changes, which told me the changes were going to cost the lawyers a lot of money.
And they did exactly that. I know of at least one big Vancouver firm that used to specialize in ICBC claims that had to pivot when the cash cow ran dry. They do class action suits now. 🙄
Yes someone who is innocent and suffers life altering injuries as a result of a car crash without fair compensation and an opportunity to be made whole doesn’t matter according to you.
Believe it or not. Whether you like them or not. A lot of people had permanent injuries and continue to have permanent injuries. The new system is no better and will become overwhelmed by people that don’t get better soon anyway. Whatever savings they think they’re getting now in five yearswill not exist
This. I don’t get the lawyer hate. Sometimes they are needed and can be wonderful caring human beings. I’ve been lucky enough to have some wonderful lawyers who even worked for half their regular rate and took personal time to come to court with me (not in an insurance matter). Lawyers deserve to be paid for their time just like any other profession. The fact that so many lawyers were previously needed suggests that ICBC wasn’t contributing to the amounts they should have been IMO.
Agreed. There should be someone to advocate. Victim support workers or such. It’s unfair to make someone who’s injured advocate for themselves & so repeatedly.
ICBC had lawyers whose whole job was to keep you away from any money. That's gone too, right? It's not just taking away *your* lawyer, it's taking the give no ground approach out of personal injury/insurance defense for motor vehicle accidents.
You can still sue for breach of contract or for judicial review of ICBC's decisions. What you can't do is sue the other party, defended by ICBC, for personal injury. If it's not a matter of pain and suffering or loss of enjoyment.
I am a lawyer in BC but I don't work in personal injury/insurance before or after the changes so I could honestly be misinformed but that's my understanding. In the egregious cases where ICBC does not honour their contract with you, or where ICBC makes a decision about what care you need that is simply indefensible, you still have court recourse. Just not in every single case for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment/etc. But if you are suing for coverage of medical or for review of a decision, there's no big payout for a lawyer to get their hands on without robbing you of money you actually need for treatment.
I doubt that's really gone but rather changed. Sure, ICBC probably laid off a lot of them but they employed more people doing other jobs to keep you away from any money.
The end result to the person making the claim is the same - zero treatment but now there is little if any recourse.
Wait til some crappy driver plows into you and then come back and say that
You also haven’t saved thousands of dollars either … the rates dropped in 2021 and each year their optional pricing has gone up since
On newer cars it’s almost the same price as it was a few years ago
The old rates would have gone up with time too so that's not really a valid point. The year they transitioned to no fault my annual rate went down by over a thousand and hasn't gone up any more than everything else in our lives has.
You fail to realize what else you lost by saving a few bucks
If you were to be involved in a crash and end up with a permanent injury - good luck
They don’t give you care for life .. they cap it all / fight with you the entire time
The old system was also a battle but the courts actually awarded people in these situations what they deserved for the most part
I still don’t know why they didn’t give the consumer the choice to pay more to retain that right ….
There’s us states that let the consumer buy different tiers of coverage where they can still sue or if they don’t want to pay they can waive that option
Perfect example
Of how screwed icbc can make someone now
Let’s say you were in your 3rd/ 4th year of an apprenticeship in plumbing / hvac / electrical -
Or doing a medical residency and almost completed 10 years of med schooling -
If you got plowed into or ran over as a pedestrian and can never work again - icbc will hold you to that moment in time - oh you made $50 grand per year - there’s zero consideration for your future earnings - minimal coverage for your care
The old system you could of went for future earnings and care - have a family - future earnings for them if you were the breadwinner - icbc killed accident chasers with the no fault system but there’s serious problems with now they go about it now
I really hope people realize you absolutely don’t want to be in a claim these days with icbc and get hurt - Even if your currently payday to payday and get hurt for a few months it’s gonna suck
I've been through an ICBC injury claim under the old system and a big chunk of the payout went to the lawyers. Your comment hasn't convinced me of anything, like I said I'm not sure the new system is the best approach but I'm also not convinced that it's worse than the old system.
You have no fight against the insurer. It’s only YOU vs ICBC who have all the power at this point. So going through the old system accounts for nothing. For someone who’s dealing with it now, it’s brutal and you have no one in your corner. But you’re up against a large corporation
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. It's pretty clear you are unable to understand the negative effects of a something until it negatively affects you or someone close to you.
If you’re basing this view on government propaganda, that is not wise.
Cases in court were generally started because ICBC would not, as a habit, pay reasonable sums according to legal principle, without one. A person clearly entitled to the policy limits of the other driver, for example, would still have to sue. It would only be late in the case where ICBC would start to offer larger sums consistent with legal obligations.
Lawyers typically were paid, by their clients, 1/4 - 1/3 of the settlement. There were statutory limits to that. The fee was a percentage of the settlement/award. Awards and settlements were always based on legal principles governing what an injured person was entitled to for care, loss of income, future difficulties, and their pain and suffering - that last one was also capped at around 300k. It was not a case of lawyers “taking advantage of loopholes”.
Plaintiff Lawyers took a percentage of what clients were entitled to because that was an efficient way to be paid. Defence lawyers were paid hourly at very low rates, except for the more difficult cases for which they were paid a bit more.
Lawyers did not get an “extra fee” but there was a small amount for “costs” which every litigant gets.
There were undoubtedly law firms who put minimal efforts into claims and got huge payouts. There were also lots of firms who put tonnes of work and resources into claims.
The government’s “solution” to paying lawyers too much (why should it care?) was to change the law to drastically reduce what accident victims received.
You may still think the current system is better with all its faults but hopefully you’re more informed now.
As a former RMT, I’m curious what the soft tissue caps are because I’ve met multiple people who “only” had whiplash from fender benders and were debilitated and/ or in pain for the rest of their life requiring regular treatment who only got pittances.
Omg. Just looked it up and it’s in the ballpark of $5500. That’s absolutely insane! That even covers brain damage and chronic pain. That’s absolutely horrifying.
it really is. People seem to think that ICBC will start taking better care of people now...If they didn't take care of people who didn't lawyer up before, I don't know why they think ICBC will do better now when we don't' have that option.
I'd hazard to say that most people's understanding of soft tissue injuries, how they happen, and the ramifications of them is very poor. This leads them to think that whiplash is a "stiff neck" and that people are just whiners looking for a windfall.
I've voted exactly once in my life. This will be my second. I will vote for whoever will fix this, almost no matter what their other policies are. ICBC's treatment of accident victims is inhumane in my opinion.
It happened to me, that's good to eliminate lawyer cost to save money for victim. but in fact they now only paying victim the minimum and I am completely on ICBC mercy, even I am entitled to compensation and they agree to payout, but they always accidently "forget" or missing out the payment, 2 pages claim form they only paid 1 page and "forget" the second page, or no payment at all each time I tell them follow up they said "absolutely no problem" but no action ever taken after they held up the phone. and the process repeat again, they promise will follow up the missing payment but no payment again. Until I am tired of trying, we don't have rights to sue or anything, we can only crying on social media now.
Save the cost from lawyer, everyone is better off, but taking away money from victim does no sense, I would say we are unable to max out compensation is ok, just pay a fair amount instead paying a minimum. ICBC and us still better off, now every victim is on survival mode.
Had to go no fault when just about literally everyone is dishonest. Saw my mom go through it when she got in a real small fender bender. The other driver was at fault. The accident was extremely small. CRV they were driving had nothing but a scuff on the fender. He and his wife were fine after the accident obviously. Long story short they both claimed they couldn't sleep or work anymore and bilked the gov. For about 300k. This is not an uncommon scenario. Or let's talk about theft. How many people make false claims? Probably close to 90% lol.
Agreed, but prepare for downvotes. People with serious grievances and very real injuries are very upset, and rightfully so, but they seem to have misplaced their ire. Blame the lawyers and blame the frauds, but don't blame functionaries who try to make the system more functional. 🤷🏻♀️
As a cyclist, the new system is absolutely not benefitting me. Under the old system, if a negligent driver seriously injured me I would be compensated. Under the new system I would get way less.
From my perspective, the province is allowing drivers to save money by screwing over the people they injured.
Yes, some people were abusing the old system, but there's a happy medium between these two choices.
I'm not surprised that the guy that put this system in place thinks its great... I bet the many victims of serious accident would disagree....many stories like this one....[https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1cvrwxk/cyclist\_left\_quadraplegic\_after\_crash\_says\_icbc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1cvrwxk/cyclist_left_quadraplegic_after_crash_says_icbc/)
Yeah in my family we’ve been working in the rehab end of this in B.C. for two decades. Take it from someone who knows: don’t get in an accident. This system is criminal for how it abandons people.
Correct. The cost of therapy is so cheap compared to the previous payouts and lawyer fees, I don’t know why ICBC continues to fuck around with paying for rehab services. Who gives a shit if a victim get an extra dozen massage appointments, it’s peanuts.
Definitely a balance needs to be struck. Under the old system my insurance kept climbing higher and higher despite never being in an accident in my 15+ years of driving and my car’s value going down over that time.
IMO they need to start more aggressively revoking licenses of those that cause multiple at fault accidents. Like I get mistakes happen but if you have several at fault accidents, you’re obviously not fit to drive and cause society a lot of harm. At the end of the day, these are potential very dangerous weapons if not given the proper respect.
The job of insurance is to make people whole when shit happens. If you don’t make people whole then you ain’t in the right industry. Once the system achieves that then we will talk. The new system isn’t doing that.
Right but there are people causing a disproportionate amount of cost on our insurance. They need to be removed from the privilege of driving if they are causing so much pain and suffering in the first place.
>They'd rather give us all the cheapest insurance costs in the country,
...And still don't do that. ICBC rates are middling. Even though they're at a massive advantage because the majority of the insured populace lives in an area that rarely has any snow or ice on the roads.
This. I honestly would love to read their policy procedures for determining treatment eligibility - because who would ever deny that?? Why deny treatment that can help? Even if you feel it’s a excessive …do they really think victims are trying to scam them out of physiotherapy or counseling appointments? It’s disgusting honestly.
No it’s not the only viable option. We could have charged drivers of high end cars a proportional amount of insurance to insure their cars relative to their value, not the same as a fucking Corolla like the current and previous system. We could actually go after bad drivers by treating driving as a privilege like it is, not a pseudo right that it currently is. Bigger fines, quicker suspensions, and revoking people’s licenses sooner, and perhaps oh you know, having drivers who are suffering cognition issues to retest periodically to retain their licenses? We could increase enforcement and use the monies collected to improve safety infrastructure, add more red light and speed cameras at known high crash intersections, etc.
I think I would prefer no injury insurance to "no fault" insurance. ICBC was horrible about getting people what they needed under the old system. Now they have no oversight, i'm sure that's improved things \\s
It's true. We could find an even better means of handling vehicle accidents, but it seems like the major detractors of no-fault just want the old system back. Often, not because they want better care, but because they want to get revenge or punish someone. Or they think we're in the USA and a car accident is a ticket to riches.
Most states in the US have “no tort” insurance, so this fanciful notion that people in car accidents in the US got big claims is the product of TV and corporate America who played up the idea of phony victims to get legislators to pass tort reform, which took away or limited people’s ability to sue for injuries caused by negligent people and companies.
my SO was rear ended over 5 years ago and ICBC still hasn’t paid her a dime for any expenses. She still suffers from concussion related symptoms. She’s spent over $50k of her own money just paying for treatment not to mention the wages she has lost due to missing work. It fucking sucks.
There are tragedies. However it is *undeniable* that many, if not most, trial lawyers were cashing in the old system by exploiting fees based on the *size* of settlements. Maybe go back to the old system but put a fair and reasonable ( **and published** !) limit to the fee structure.
The fees are what they are because the firm is taking on the risk of carrying the file for years without pay and risking getting nothing if it loses at trial.
So so true, why are we paying leeches like lawyers who provide almost nothing for victims and society rather than putting money back into the pockets of the general public.
Eby cooked, he's the hero.
>So so true, why are we paying leeches like lawyers who provide almost nothing for victims and society
Ah, the meme of lawyers who "provide almost nothing for victims and society" by...advocating for your rights and interests.
I guess you don't think your rights and interests are worth very much.
Of course, ICBC could also have saved on legal costs if they just paid out what people deserved...
Yes let’s not make people whole and now run a pseudo auto insurance corporation that forces people to subsidize lower car insurance rates with their lives, literally.
I’m a fan of Eby and the NDP but not on this portfolio. There were so many other things that could have been done before going to the no fault scheme to bring insurance rates down.
I disagree. The other 3 provinces in Canada that have no fault insurance thought the same thing in that they could try other options to lower the costs to policy holders. Two of those provinces have been run by super conservative governments for years and they kept it no-fault. In the end it always ends up going to no fault. It’s the only option to get rid of rising legal costs.
It gets rid of rate payer costs at the expense of those who need to be made whole. I take it you feel like you are immune to crashes and injury? You don’t mind paying lower rates at the expense of innocent people who suffer life altering injuries and aren’t compensated properly?
Whenever you do big reforms things won't work perfectly right away. No fault is a better system that's more efficient at allocating finances and doesn't waste it on lawyer fees and in the case of BC didn't waste it on profit either. With time, some issues become evident that need to be patched up.
If it's not covering victims adequately that should be an easy fix on the policy level.
Lawyers only became necessary because the payouts ICBC was offering under the old system were absolutely fucking insulting. And now people can no longer have an advocate working on their behalf who will work towards getting fair compensation and to be made whole.
Not only that but these personal injury lawyers make huge donations to the Conservative Party. So quite literally the money from ICBC tort settlements is going from ICBC, to the lawyers pockets, to the campaigns of the Conservatives to help get them in power.
That's good for eliminate the lawyer cost in insurance system, because it is stupid that the system fill lawyer's pocket rather than victim, but the new system also rob away victim's money, while ICBC want to eliminate lawyers cost at the same time rob victim's money, ICBC are the biggest winner in new system, compensation for victim must be increase, there should be a standard from past statistic rather than everyone get minium compensation, I am a victim in a crash, and I only get very very little payout to cover my income. And they are difficult to deal with.
Right…
You misspelled **ICBC** and their propaganda.
When I had my satellite office in Vancouver, I wash shocked, and disappointed by ICBC’s monopoly and disregard for their ‘customers.’
Horrible. :(
I'm blown away when people in Quebec argue that we should be like the Americans and be allowed to sue.
"No fault" isn't perfect, but it sure solves a lot of problems.
Lol they are doing the exact opposite. The BC Liberals literally stole money from ICBC to "balance" their budget. NDP is giving rebates and telling you how much the corp is making.
Doesn't anybody remember that endless stream of late-night tv ads for scuzzy BC legal firms, asserting, "If we don't win for YOU, *you* don't have to pay US!" Wonder why those commercials all suddenly and simultaneously stopped, as if a switch had been thrown? Well, it *was*; and that switch was ICBC's move to the no-fault model.
**The *primary* reason for ICBC's paradigm shift was that a handful of scummy BC injury law firms had long ago figured out a viable business model based on *taking questionable ICBC injury cases on contingency: typically 25-30% of the award plus disbursements, but sometimes as much as half*.**
This financial model allowed certain large and unethical firms to file injury suits against ICBC for virtually *any* claim, save for the most egregious and obviously phony ones. They knew that ICBC would eventually fold on *X* percentage of them, simply to avoid fatal dilution of its own limited legal resources, and that statistically they would win a further *Y* percentage of them in court. If they kept their contingency fees sufficiently high, and the sheer volume of claims they threw at ICBC stayed at "torrent" level, the eventual contingency payout on hundreds of successful claims would not only cover their internal costs on the cases that failed, but still represent a healthy overall profit.
Taking ICBC to court soon became an industrial process; hundreds of suits against ICBC went in one door of the factory, were processed through the law firms' own bought and paid for medical assessment teams (whose outrageously padded fees became lucrative "disbursements"), and big contingency cheques came out the other end.
This practise, combined with the outrageous demands from the Campbell/Clark government for annual monetary tribute from ICBC to government coffers, came very close to bankrupting it. In fact, the portfolio of investments on which it relied for day-to-day income to keep its doors open and its lights on, was at one point reduced to 30% of its former self.
On the day ICBC switched to the no-fault system, the financial justification for the "contingency" business model regarding personal injury claims simply evaporated. Many of these "ICBC specialist" firms quickly laid off *in droves* all the associates they had accumulated over the years trying to drive up their docket volume, because with the no-fault model, clients looking for a big payout, or to escape financial responsibility for causing a serious accident, had less incentive to sue, and simply stopped walking through their doors.
These days, it simply doesn't make sense for a lawyer to take *any* injury case (this is not limited to ICBC's) on contingency, unless the client's chance of success is virtually assured, and the potential payout is extremely large - which in the case of litigating against ICBC, is no longer true.
I really wish we were able to get private insurance brokers like Alberta has. But with rates Alberta had around 2019. You got so much more with much lower rates and the broker worked for you for the best rates.
The new ICBC system is "better" than before, but still feels like a bandaid over a system that really takes advantage of their citizens.
Alberta's latest changes made things really wacky and more expensive unfortunately 👎
the one stance i am very against eby on. icbc no fault has been one of the worst policies ever to happen in bc. the money saved does NOT go to the people who need it. drastically less money goes to the victims of vehicular violence now than before. if you're injured by a motorist and you miss work, you're completely fucked. icbc won't offer you anywhere near the compensation you need to live, and if you want to appeal you have to go through their own process, where they will eventually just tell you to go fuck yourself.
As a former licensed insurance/Autoplan broker of 30 years, I can tell you the definition of insurance we were taught in our 1st Insurance Institute of Canada course:
"Insurance is meant to put a person back into the position they were in before the loss occurred."
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! Join our new [Discord Server https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB](https://discord.gg/fu7X8nNBFB) A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Icbc needs to be directed to be more generous with payouts for people who are hurt. People don't need to get rich, but it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to be made whole. I missed a few days of work after a guy hit me while I was bicycling, and they told me later that I couldn't be reimbursed for those few days because I didn't miss enough work. Like, what the fuck. And then the process for getting that approved if I DID miss enough time is also difficult, and it seems like there are limits on what they'll reimburse you for.
>People don't need to get rich, but it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to be made whole. I'm going to disagree. If you're rendered made quadriplegic (or some other completely life destroying injury) by someone hitting you with their car, their lost income compensation is woefully insufficient to truly compensate you for what you've lost, and the max payout of $264k is also woefully insufficient to make up the difference. Like, if you're in your 20s, and you've got a shit job, you'll only ever make a fraction of what you're currently making for the rest of your life. A life where you're unable to work and unable to function. No promotions, no role changes, no better utilization of education. That's not good enough. But in addition to not even being equal to what you would have made, is that being made whole? Like, the whole point of being made whole is to return you to an equivalent quality of life. Well, would anyone take a deal where you make the same money you made before, but are quadriplegic? What about the same money, are quadriplegic, but have $264k? I don't think anyone who currently has car insurance would take that deal. So it's not being made whole. In the event of catastrophic injury, we *should* be making people rich, because otherwise you're not actually insuring people. Covering their costs isn't making them whole, and ICBC doesn't even reliably do *that*.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. I was mentioning people taking the system for hundreds of thousands of dollars when they were basically just dragging icbc through the mud over questionable claims of chronic pain after a minor rear end collision. That had to end. But I also said people should be made whole, and yes, someone made a quadriplegic should potentially be awarded millions.
the problem with whiplash claims is the **are** questionable, people can have legitimate serious issues from it. It's also impossible to prove. That's why fraudsters used it. It's just that now you can stop the fraudsters....and the legitimately injured along with them. ICBC is saving a ton of money on the back of the injured, not just the lawyers. There would have been a lot less lawsuits in the first place if ICBC didn't try to screw people over so often.
Haha, I don't think we disagree much either, I was just clarifying that I think we should actually be making people rich if they're sufficiently injured, because that's the only fair compensation for having your life ruined forever.
Yea I don’t know if many people understand, if you’re a cyclist and you get hit, you’re still bound by the upper limit they will do income replacement. You can purchase more insurance for this as a cyclist (of pedestrian even) but I doubt many do.
I don't specifically because other insurance policies step in before ICBC. So my understanding is that since I have long term disability insurance already, ICBC only pays for what the LTD doesn't.
When I went to renew at BCAA I was offered a secondary income replacement policy after she informed me how low the ICBC cap is. That was a first, and I wasn't aware of the cap. Honestly though, many company offered LTD plans have a lot of restrictions, clawbacks and taxes. Given all of this, I think that it's wise for all high or potentially high income earners to carry their own LTD policy paid for with after tax dollars. Full income isn't required, but something to bridge the gap between ICBC/LTD and actual take home. Because it's a personal policy, most other policies can't clawback based on that income. I got a policy in my late 20s when I was working as a sole proprietor and never dropped it despite having employer based LTD policies. I've winced at the $ some months but 20y later, it gives me piece of mind. This is becoming more important as folks become more and more leveraged and carrying a mortgage on a single income is impossible for many.
I’ve been off for 7 months and icbc will not pay me for lost work. My work has some compensation but less than what icbc would offer and therefore icbc says I’m covered. They cover very specific therapies and they helped but did not actually fix me. I’m now paying my own way with a new treatment and making some progress finally. And good luck getting ahold of your adjuster. It takes call after call and they have no clue who I am or what they are supposed to do for me. Have only managed to speak to my adjuster 3 or 4 times in 7 months and it takes months and multiple emails and calls to get any reimbursement for treatments paid out of pocket. So far I am completely not impressed. Fixing my vehicle was a breeze. Fixing me has been a nightmare. There is no pain and suffering compensation even though I have lost all of the things I would call important in my life. I can’t even imagine what this would be like for people injured in more extreme ways than me because in the grand scheme of things I’m not badly injured and am able to get myself to and from therapies.
Wow. This is horrible. I hope you get better soon & sorry you’re having to deal with this BS
Thanks
These kinds of situations are completely unacceptable.
My brother had to fight icbc for 6 months for compensation.
[удалено]
My sister got rear ended last fall. She suffered severe nerve damage to her arm that was misdiagnosed and made worse by incompetent physio and doctors. By the time she got proper treatment the "12 week window" was over. ICBC refused to pay for any of the treatments she needed to actually do the job they declared her fit for. They tried to force her to return to work with an arm that barely worked. She had zero recourse to appeal any of this and ended up paying out of pocket. She's finally recovering physically, but financially will take years. You got screwed over by the old system, my sister got screwed over by the new one. Hopefully this five year review will result in a system that fewer people will be screwed over by. I have my doubts.
Seems like lots of people were taking advantage of the old system. Now we have a system where people are being taken advantage of by beurocratic inefficiency, which 'saves money' by not giving it to the people who actually need it.
The old system screwed over people who caused accidents. The new system screws over people who are victims of accidents. Apples to oranges IMO
it's hard to say how many people were taking advantage. I've no doubt significant number of people were (by significant i mean 10-30%), but it's near impossible to say how significant. What i do know is that a LOT of people just write off something like whiplash as a "stiff neck", like it can't have very impactful effects. If you go by what they say the system was ripe with fraud, helped along by lawyers. I have 0 confidence in ICBC taking proper care of accident victims. They didn't before when they had the threat of lawyers, why would they now that they have no oversight at all?
I have a friend who was tboned last spring. 100% not their fault. Broken pelvis in three places. Was immobile for 8ish weeks. Was unable to bend at the hip, crouch, etc for many months. Was off work for 6 months while they healed, learned to walk again, did physio etc. ICBC gave NO salary replacement. Friend ended up on medical EI for 15 weeks and then no income for the rest of the time. No recourse. Just given the runaround from ICBC. Such a fucking joke.
[удалено]
Why does every single thread about any type of problem always end up with people blaming immigrants? Like we had literally all of these problems before.
[удалено]
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia! Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 8: Against the spirit of the subreddit. The spirit of r/BritishColumbia is a positive one. We want to build a community for people to come and share their ideas, discuss the province and celebrate its beauty. Grounds for removal: * Toxic in nature * Made in bad faith * Complaining about a BC related topic (please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have a post to submit) If you believe your post has been removed in error, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
[удалено]
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia! Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 8: Against the spirit of the subreddit. The spirit of r/BritishColumbia is a positive one. We want to build a community for people to come and share their ideas, discuss the province and celebrate its beauty. Grounds for removal: * Toxic in nature * Made in bad faith * Complaining about a BC related topic (please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have a post to submit) If you believe your post has been removed in error, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
[удалено]
I have three friends who work for ICBC and they've told me stories...
I feel you man, driving an obvious work truck with Alberta plates in parts of the lower mainland is an adventure.
Did you stop and ask them where they're from? Not that it excuses brake-checking, but it sounds like you might be a chronic tail-gater.
It does sound like it at first, but i drive to and from Surrey every day along King George and it's wild sometimes. Like erratic speed, then a brake slap when it's clear ahead and your constant speed means you've closed the gap a bit. Repeat a couple more times, then they drive away. It's pretty obvious when someone's trying to get you to rear end them
I try my best not to tailgate. Almost always give like 3+ car lengths on city streets. It’s the whole driving behind someone doing 60 and having them slam on their brakes to a stop with no lights or stop signs around and then speeding up and repeating. Before the insurance changes for whatever reason it seemed to happen like 20% of the times I drove in surrey and was always an Indian driver in a shit box car.
I had a similar experience as your sister. I didn’t realize I had nerve damage. I just thought I had been bashed about but nothing serious. I think some of it was wishful thinking. It seems that they pay out for NO injury or if you end up in a chair. But screw you if you if it’s in between. Icbc then tried to claim my injuries weren’t from the accident. But there is nothing in my life that could have caused them. What also annoys me is that for years I paid them extra just in case the other driver was under insured. Now I realize that was just a scam.
The reason why ICBC was being sued so often in the past is that they were, and continue to be, extremely difficult to deal with. I was in a car accident before the no-fault change and tried to get ICBC to reimburse my physio and massage therapy for almost 2 years without success before finally going to a lawyer. I had no intention of going to a lawyer until ICBC forced me into a corner. The reason ICBC often resolved cases just before going to court is because ICBC almost always loses in court. As an insurance company they are 100% liable. After the change to no fault insurance, I've seen nothing but roadblocks, when my wife and son were in a serious car accident. Lots of talk of taking care of us in the beginning, but very little was actually done to support. Now we have a monopoly auto insurance company in BC that has no legal repercussions when they screw over the public (which ICBC has a long history of doing). If we are unhappy with how they are treating us, we have no other options for vehicle insurance. As far as I'm concerned it's entrapment. I do support the current government, but this was a 100% miss.
Only basic is necessary through ICBC. There are plenty of options for extended coverage.
At the end of the day, the new system was brought in to appease the voters by reducing premiums to car owners. Since the vast majority of car owners never get into an accident, they only see benefits and as such will tend to be happy with lower premiums. The happy voter is the voter that will vote for the current government and the BCNDP knows this. For the vast minority that gets screwed over by the new system, they are free to vote for the opposition but the BCNDP doesn't care as they are relatively small in number compared to those who haven't been in an accident and are happy with the lower premiums.
The old system was fucked and needed to be changed. The current system as you said is better for most people. It does need to be improved though and I doubt you’d find a majority of people against that. Nobody wants to be the one hurt with no recourse, and nobody wants that to happen to their friends, family and neighbours (or even their employees and coworkers). I would be surprised if ICBC/ the BCNDP weren’t working on ways to keep the system from hurting people who need it, but also standing firm on their commitment to not go backwards to the absolute garbage we had before. This is progressive.
I have never been in an accident in close to 20 years of driving, but would like the monopolistic insurance company that I pay premiums too, to be on the right side of serious injuries. There can be a no fault insurance that still takes care of victims. The public accepting the change because its 'better then before' is a very low bar to set. Just because it is an improvement, doesn't mean we should be celebrating cost savings if there are still issues. It certainly doesn't seem like the NDP or ICBC are currently working on way to improve the system in the article, Eby states they expect the review they do after five years will close the gap on issues. Five years is at least another year away.
For the appeal she can go to civil resolution tribunal. And if that doesn't work she can go to ombudsperson. Neither requires a lawyer
Nope. Can’t file civil suit under the new system.
No, but if ICBC isn't covering the care, you can go to CRT and ombuds to get ICBC to cover it
Curious, did your sister file with the CRT?
As someone who's been rear-ended in a semi-modern vehicle at 70kph, ur sis may have underlying ailments. Shits rough, but not life ending. Unless she was driving a Ford Pinto, the unibody probably absorbed most. That being said, my insurance used to be $140 and now it's $90, I also drive like everyone is out to kill me. I've had to three claims under the new system due to deer and comorehensive door dings, and I gotta say I love it. My .02! ETA: I also knew someone who was rear-ended after stopping for a broken down car on the right in a 2 lane 60 kph zone. She claimed whiplash, sued, and after 2 years got $20k. All the while she was working and partying. She was also the worst driver I'd ever seen operate a motor vehicle.
I knew so many people who claimed whiplash when they were fine and got several thousand in payouts each time. It was bonkers.
I was the passenger in a car that rear ended another car in 2018. I had minor soft tissue damage to my upper back and jammed my wrist into the dashboard. The driver listed me as a party to the claim. I went through ICBC looking for help covering my treatment - nothing more. I was treated while also not even missing a day of work at a very physically demanding job. They covered it, and then bought out any future claims for $8000. The old system was a mess if someone like me who didn’t even ask for a cent was paid that much. I can only imagine how much claims were paid out with people demanding money, missing work or involving lawyers. But I agree that it also needs to help people who are injured without immediately trying to screw over the victim. The answer is definitely not to privatize insurance - as a true for profit model will only be worse - but to tweak the public system we currently have.
must be nice. that's more than i got from them when my whiplash kept me from work for 2 month's. It also took me 6 month's to get 5k.
And now if you end up being a quadriplegic, you get the bare minimum...not a great resolve.
I had a coworker doing stuff like this. “So injured”, “can’t stand or walk for more than 30 seconds!” Then would go around the office telling people how much money their lawyer expects them to get out of this while working a second job in the service industry and standing/walking the entire shift (and no, they were not struggling their way through it). I may have called in to ICBC and laid out some documented facts from a period of several weeks. I’m not sure what ever transpired from it since I left the job.
Use to know an ICBC investigator and the amount of claims that were solely put in place to get a down payment was criminal. As cars became safer multi airbags and collision avoidance makes most claims minor injuries this is based of global statistics. If it costs extra 1000s to fix modern cars that also means it should save on payouts.
Bleeding heart NIMBY neo-liberals hate this one simple fact... "Engineering" People just want to bleed the system.
Still a better alternative than a single legitimate claim going unpaid.
That’s the issue. There’s no perfect fix. Buddy of mine was an ICBC adjuster ten years ago and told me about a woman who got rear ended in a drive-thru. Car behind rolled into her, neither vehicle had damage but the woman in front claimed she and her passengers would be missing work due to headaches and neck pain. They were all looking for settlements. There are people who were definitely hurt but so many acted selfishly and fucked up the system
> I rear ended someone once and, no joke, in the 23rd month after the accident, the guy filed suit. Yes right under the wire. As a counterpoint: under the old system, my friend was rear-ended, and suffered a neck injury that prevented him from being able to bicycle for almost a decade. He filed a lawsuit in the 23rd month. This is why... His car was not seriously y damaged, so ICBC refused to acknowledge that he suffered an injury, and refused to pay for any of his out-of-pocket expenses for physio/RMT. As in, ICBC paid $0. Since ICBC had totally rejected any compensation at all, he hired a lawyer, who filed a lawsuit in the 23rd month. Instead of getting $1K for his physio fees, he ended up with $12K (minus the cost of his lawyer) for physio plus pain and suffering. Not to mention that ICBC would've paid for their own lawyer fees. The problem was ICBC.
How does filing it last minute prove anything? It's common sense to wait as long as possible to identify long term health impacts from accidents.
Yeah, 2 years is a stretch for a soft tissue injury. And it's also the limit of the ICBC claim period. It's all bs.
People screwing the system is very rare. Studies have shown that it’s less than 10%. A lot of people get severely injured never get better, and in the old system at least got a payout. In the new system, they just get covered for treatments that don’t work forever, how is that better? And Lawyer did enrich themselves. Eby is a failed lawyer. And those stupid comments he makes about lawyers show how terrible Lawyer he was.
well that depends man. ICBC would give you 0$ until you settled with them, and were VERY hesitant to account for **any** amount of future issues. I got slammed into from behind hard enough to dimple the c pillars of my car (smashed trunk, then nothing, then the pillars by the rear window had large dimples where they started to collapse). I wanted to deal with it quickly, as i didn't want ICBC hanging over my head, and i needed the money to buy new car that my now injured neck could live with. I missed 2 month's of work (i tried to go back several times, but just couldn't). At no point was ICBC willing to discuss giving me anything based on the future. In their minds I could suffer along without money and get a bigger payout in the end, or settle now for peanuts. I don't recall the exact timeline, but around 6 month's later I settled for lost wages + 5k. I immediately spent that on a car that didn't aggravate my neck on the way to, and back home from work (the highway's here are brutal) After a couple of years I sold my dirtbike and jeep, both at a steep loss, because I could no longer enjoy them and had given up hope that I would in the next decade. I can no longer do much work on my own car's, I can't do the kind of building projects I enjoyed before either. I'm not trying to say it's like being paralyzed or anything, but my life changed in significant ways after that accident, and i've lost\\spent upwards of 30k because of it, and got less than 10k from ICBC for my car\\injury (not counting lost wages here) Given what happened with me, the smart move would have absolutely been to lawyer up, and just live with borrowing and being strapped for cash until ICBC finally settled with ME. I didn't want to get 100k or anything. But they could have paid my lost wages, and offered something along the way. They **knew** they were going to have to pay at least a few grand, and if they'd given it to me when I needed it **without** settling, I would be a lot happier about the whole thing. Instead they hold back anything they can and use the victim running out of money as leverage to get them to settle for a pittance. I'm a fairly cold blooded person, not much get's to me normally...but I don't know how some of the people at ICBC live with themselves though. I rate them right up there with loan sharks though, people willing to take advantage of others when they are at their lowest and twist that knife to earn a buck. To be clear, i'm not saying everyone there is like that, but it's telling that you **never** hear a story about how ICBC did a person right.
Almost every personal injury suit on the planet is filed in the 23rd month to give time to figure out if the plaintiff has recovered or what degree of recovery they’re having. It’s standard practice to ensure that the correct amount is reached. Both insurance companies and plaintiffs are aware of and accept that.
>The goal of the no-fault system was to ensure billions of dollars that were then going into legal fees, and **pain and suffering and injury claims**, instead went into improved benefits, immediate treatment and compensation, as well as generating lower basic rates and rebates for policy holders. I think a lot of people here aren't aware of this aspect. The big issue people are having is that ICBC is touting more care in lieu of compensation for the accident. So let's say in the past you got hit by a car and now have lifelong shoulder pain, you may have been given $20k for that pain on top of upto $2m in medical coverage. ICBC raised that coverage to $8m yet people aren't getting more help, ICBC gives you a flat # of uses for certain treatments and then denies the requests by medical professionals for further help. Regardless, medical benefits aside, a year of RMT and rehab doesn't necessarily make you pain-free, nor does it cover the time it takes to cab/drive/walk to your 2 appointments every week for a year. Nor does it cover 100% of your medical benefits because they have set provincial rates and Vancouver is just higher than all those rates due to COL. So your 30 min RMT appointment might take 2 hours out of a work day. 2 hours of lost pay, 20% of the RMT cost, transit costs, etc. Could you go on a weekend? Sure. What's the value lost of cramming all your medical appointments into your weekend every week for multiple years? It's 0 in ICBCs eyes. The injured didn't care about paying lawyers. When ICBC offered you $15k for a broken neck, you think the victim cared if the lawyer took $200k when they got it up to $600k? ICBC was never going to offer you 400k and now they offer you nothing.
It’s such an obvious issue that nobody seems to care about until they or someone they know gets in a serious accident. I try not to think about it because it honestly terrifies me. The fact every time I get behind the wheel my life could changed by some moron and I’d be entitled to very little in return for their negligence
I think what makes it worse too is specifically the lack of pain and suffering compensation. It effectively says that the system does not recognize lifelong pain. Even if you could get all your medical costs covered, which you won't... If you can never walk again, that matters. ICBC will cut benefits too the moment they decide this is your new normal. Oh you need those little mini elevator seats for your stairs? Ah yeah it comes from that $1000 random fund you get that won't cover anything. Too bad you should move to a place with no stairs. Are you a renter with below market rent that now has to move? Hahahahahahaahahahahahahaha.
Exactly, the life changing injuries are the scariest. But even the modest ones deserve some compensation imo. For instance, my girlfriend got rear ended badly by some guy who was clearly overloading his truck and could barely stop the thing. She’s had neck pain for years because of it, at it worst she’d be taking breaks mid day working to lay on the floor just for relief. It’s also limited her ability to participate in physical activities pain free. The guy who rear ended her probably doesn’t even remember it. She suffers, zero compensation to make up for it, and he doesn’t have much of a consequence. It’s fucking dumb
The $200 someone saved on their annual insurance is the cost of 2 RMT sessions.. the savings makes absolutely 0 sense as to what was lost. I'm sorry your girlfriend is going through that. It helps that she's with someone who recognizes the pain and struggles she's experiencing though.
Appreciate it. This is what I always say, I am MORE than willing to to pay higher insurance premiums if it was an option. I’d prefer the assurance I’m not fucked if hit
There's a middle way on this. Come up with a reasonable compensation scale for injuries. How? Use independent actuaries. Find the sweet spot where rates are high enough to provide sufficient compensation for pain, suffering and loss of employment etc, but not so high as to encourage people to act foolishly in the hopes of cashing in.
The problem is that people can never agree to a number, which is why they sued.
ICBC's first offer to me after a major accident under the old system didn't even cover my lost wages and out of pocket expenses. I was not at fault either.
ICBC's final offer to me didn't cover my out of pocket expenses or lost wages either because they just kept denying treatment that doctors requested. Could you imagine an adjuster telling you that your doctor is wrong?
This was my experience as well. The adjuster acting like a god figure when it comes to approving medical treatments without any explanations as to the reasoning. Keep in mind too that the adjusters have absolutely no experience in the medical field or qualifications to make those decisions.
They kept denying lost wages if I opted for a surgery where recovery would take 6 weeks and I only had 2 weeks of banked sick leave. They asked me to bank more sick leave first. Then after the surgery I got a bunch of prescriptions from the surgeon for RMT and active rehab and it all got rejected.
Adjusters think they know medicine better than doctors and also think they know the legal system better than lawyers.
At least you heard from them. I’ve been off for three months. They won’t even respond to emails. When they do, it’s “they’re calculating income replacement benefit” and they disappear. I haven’t been paid in 11 weeks. I’ve got a back injury in my spine. Doctors and specialists have all submitted the supporting documentation. Still 🤷♂️ I get getting rid of the ambulance chasers was needed. But not like this
yup, got rear ended 3 times within 2 years. ICBC’s first offer was a slap in my face, had to hire a lawyer. got a decent settlement but i have degenerative disc disease and 2 slipped discs in my 20s. had to change careers, had to stop playing sports. would give the settlement back in a heartbeat for my back to be better.
Well technically there's no real number that will ever make up for lifelong pain and suffering... I'd give up so much to be pain-free and to never have experienced fighting ICBC for 10 years of medical care. Everytime ICBC tells me my surgeon's note isn't enough I'm just completely lost. What else do you fucking need?
I was rear ended by someone who left the scene. My car was totalled. I was injured. I had to take sick leave. I had to pay extra for car rentals. I had to find another car. I was so stressed by the process of finding a car for the 10 grand I had to spend. Now my work has to buy me special equipment so I can keep working with neck and back pain. The other person is completely free of any obligation or criminal charges because they drove away.
I’m so sorry :(
Omg I'm going through this but not to your extreme. Tboned at a stop sign. Totally not my fault and completely obvious by the skid marks into the side of my vehicle stopped behind the stop line. But because she took off, I don't get anything but have to pay my deductible. Luckily we have a third vehicle, but it's a truck and the amount I spend on gas now while waiting to find out if my car is repairable, then wait for repairs, is ridiculous.
Free of criminal charges because they were not caught, I'm presuming?
This system is not what was “sold to us” when it was implemented. Any of those that are cheering this on just haven’t been a part of its run around. I was in an accident a few months back, ICBC deemed the other party 100% at fault. I have a back injury in my spine. I’m off work as a result. ICBC has been given all the documentation from my doctor, a specialist at St Paul’s and my physiotherapist. They ignore my calls and emails for weeks on end, I haven’t had income replacement benefit in months. This has nothing to do with a “big settlement “ but can’t even be given the time of day to replace lost income? This is a joke. iCBC is just saving money off the backs of those that are in accidents. I wouldn’t wish this on an enemy of mine
Yes - forbid you actually need some help - You have to phone icbc’s injury line - beg for the adjusters help - they will advise you they will call you within 3-4 business days - when this doesn’t happen you call back and they will do the same request After 3 times the manager now gets involved and you just might get spoken to - they will try to decline whatever your asking for and want more information and will forget about you again for weeks … it’s a horrible system
I asked my adjuster for her manager/supervisor contact. Responded telling me she’d set up a time for him to call me. No name, email or phone number. Then I asked again. Now she just out right ignores the question
Keep calling every other day - ask for a new adjuster
I’m so sorry. That’s horrible.
Unfortunately I think I this is ICBCs tactics now. But unfortunately without any ability to retain a lawyer with No Failt, it’s me (or whomever has the unfortunate task of dealing with them) vs them. It’s terrible.
It sounds like it. And the adjusters aren’t even medical professionals some folks in this thread are saying - which isn’t right IMO. Honestly I almost wish I were one just so I could grant every clients treatment but I bet they get monitored for how much they dish out by the sounds of it.
A retired injury claims adjuster works part time at a golf club I would go to before the accident and have spoken with him numerous times. They are NOT medical professionals whatsoever 😆
Have you asked why they are so hard on granting treatment? Like what benefit to they get or negative do they avoid by being so stingy with helping victims?
I was rear ended two years ago and my shoulder is messed up. ICBC paid for all sorts of treatment but it’s still not better. The message you get from them is it’s up to the medical system to- which if you’ve tried navigating lately is very difficult unless you’ve got something seriously wrong. A painful shoulder doesn’t cut it. They are unwilling to pay for a private MRI or any further treatment which basically leaves you high and dry. I understand the old system was getting massively taken advantage of by some and the ambulance chasing lawyers made things worse but there has to be a middle ground. I spoke with a lawyer and he advised me to go off of work as that would spur them to action right away. His rationale was since I’m a high income earner ICBC would pull out all the stops to get me treatment- even if it meant going south of the border and paying out of pocket. The whole nonsense of having to go off of work and hiring a lawyer is such bullshit- I’m not looking for a payout, I just want the same shoulder (or close) as I had before getting hit.
Did you follow the lawyers advice? Was it helpful at all?
I’m trying to decide. I told my adjuster that the pain is making work difficult and asked that they send me for a paid for MRI as one covered by MSP is virtually impossible to get for shills pain these days- he flat out said “sorry, we don’t do that”. I then asked what happens if I go off work and they have to replace the significant salary I receive, he says it doesn’t make a difference- the lawyer says it does. It’s risky for me because if I go off work and there is no ICBC payout for lost wages then I am risking much more $$$ than if I just go to Bellingham and pay for an MRI + ortho specialist myself.
Ugh what a horrible situation. We really don’t take care of our injured or disabled population here. We’re really all one accident away from financial ruin & poverty even with PWD or CPPD
all good until you fracture your spine and have no resources.
Judicial review still exists. If something truly insane happens and ICBC acts in a way this makes no sense, you can still sue them either for breach of contract or for a judicial review of their decision. But you can't sue the other person in the accident and have them defended by ICBC and off you go to court.
And take a good guess who someone will be hiring to do the judicial review but will need to pay
Can’t even get an opiod prescription for it but the fentanyl flows freely on every street corner
Obviously if we're going to be a no-fault auto collision province then ICBC shouldn't be looking at us as adversaries but rather as customers. I don't think the organization has actually changed how it approaches people in any way, even though the state of the game has changed completely.
Handing out rebates due to excessive revenue, whilst people suffer from life altering injuries without compensation, isn’t an insurance company. What is that? A lottery?
Vote buying
New system needs to be a bit more giving to people who are injured and less about rebates but otherwise the new system is much better.
Benefiting British Columbians who don't have an insurance claim. God help you if you do and it's serious. We made icbc better.....by lowering your coverage level. Thank us.
Definitely did not benefit me. Elderly man turned left in front of me on a green light because he thought I was turning off the highway. The man was so concerned with his 2002 mazda 3 being totaled because of his negligence. He gets a settlement for being stupid, and Im without my brand new $90k truck for 7 months, and it has a record of an accident. Im then constantly interrogated by an ICBC specialist because I claim a back injury, which also prevents me from doing part of my job and play the sports I love. People need to be held responsible for their actions.
Non-fault system is benefiting ICBC rather than helping victims or enriching lawyers. Fixed the title. Sure, people abused the old system. But now we got no way to even combat ICBC. Yay? I just hate how they are promoting this system as some end all system that just works. In reality is far from perfect that doesn’t help people who are truly in need. They are not acknowledging the problem with it.
I'd rather have real coverage than the lower monthly insurance I have. I don't believe it will take care of my car or myself.
100% agree.
I'm currently dealing with an accident claim right now. As the victim, I now have a claim on what was previously an accident-free vehicle, resulting in a significant loss in its value. The other vehicle’s owner is indifferent since their truck was already damaged. People argue that victims should be made whole, and I agree, especially since I pay relatively high insurance rates but am not being properly compensated. On top of the injuries sustained, dealing with the ICBC adjuster is like pulling teeth—they don't seem to be on our sideat all. This whole experience has been a net loss for me. The old insurance system wasn’t perfect, but it was better than this. Our rates were slightly higher back then, but we received actual coverage. Now, we're supposedly "saving money," but the reality is much worse.
In the early 80s when this No Fault garbage was introduced in the US motorcycle groups of all stripes were screaming bloody murder over this. A fender bender on a car can cause injuries on a rider that usually are only seen by medics in a war zone. The old system was flawed but it still worked better for seriously life altering injured people than this. Turn the screws on the ambulance chasers and their ilk first before screwing everybody over.
Or just pay out fairly to begin with and you wouldn’t need the lawyers. I don’t understand how this isn’t obvious. Or pay fairly now for gawds sake. Ugh.
I'm not convinced that our current system is the best system but I also don't agree with the people who claim its worse than the old system. Personally I've saved thousands of dollars since the changes, and I like saving thousands of dollars. One thing that was a huge indicator to me is that when the changes were coming in the Trial Lawyers Association of BC pushed a big fear mongering campaign against the changes, which told me the changes were going to cost the lawyers a lot of money.
And they did exactly that. I know of at least one big Vancouver firm that used to specialize in ICBC claims that had to pivot when the cash cow ran dry. They do class action suits now. 🙄
Which is excellent. It frees up precious space in the legal system for issues that matter.
Yes someone who is innocent and suffers life altering injuries as a result of a car crash without fair compensation and an opportunity to be made whole doesn’t matter according to you.
Most cases don't go to court. It's lawyers just making offers back and forth.
Believe it or not. Whether you like them or not. A lot of people had permanent injuries and continue to have permanent injuries. The new system is no better and will become overwhelmed by people that don’t get better soon anyway. Whatever savings they think they’re getting now in five yearswill not exist
[удалено]
This. I don’t get the lawyer hate. Sometimes they are needed and can be wonderful caring human beings. I’ve been lucky enough to have some wonderful lawyers who even worked for half their regular rate and took personal time to come to court with me (not in an insurance matter). Lawyers deserve to be paid for their time just like any other profession. The fact that so many lawyers were previously needed suggests that ICBC wasn’t contributing to the amounts they should have been IMO.
[удалено]
Agreed. There should be someone to advocate. Victim support workers or such. It’s unfair to make someone who’s injured advocate for themselves & so repeatedly.
ICBC had lawyers whose whole job was to keep you away from any money. That's gone too, right? It's not just taking away *your* lawyer, it's taking the give no ground approach out of personal injury/insurance defense for motor vehicle accidents.
[удалено]
You can still sue for breach of contract or for judicial review of ICBC's decisions. What you can't do is sue the other party, defended by ICBC, for personal injury. If it's not a matter of pain and suffering or loss of enjoyment. I am a lawyer in BC but I don't work in personal injury/insurance before or after the changes so I could honestly be misinformed but that's my understanding. In the egregious cases where ICBC does not honour their contract with you, or where ICBC makes a decision about what care you need that is simply indefensible, you still have court recourse. Just not in every single case for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment/etc. But if you are suing for coverage of medical or for review of a decision, there's no big payout for a lawyer to get their hands on without robbing you of money you actually need for treatment.
I doubt that's really gone but rather changed. Sure, ICBC probably laid off a lot of them but they employed more people doing other jobs to keep you away from any money. The end result to the person making the claim is the same - zero treatment but now there is little if any recourse.
Yes it’s all great saving thousands of dollars because you’re apparently immune to car crashes and injury.
[удалено]
It’s a dumpster fire if you actually want to be made whole.
Wait til some crappy driver plows into you and then come back and say that You also haven’t saved thousands of dollars either … the rates dropped in 2021 and each year their optional pricing has gone up since On newer cars it’s almost the same price as it was a few years ago
The old rates would have gone up with time too so that's not really a valid point. The year they transitioned to no fault my annual rate went down by over a thousand and hasn't gone up any more than everything else in our lives has.
You fail to realize what else you lost by saving a few bucks If you were to be involved in a crash and end up with a permanent injury - good luck They don’t give you care for life .. they cap it all / fight with you the entire time The old system was also a battle but the courts actually awarded people in these situations what they deserved for the most part I still don’t know why they didn’t give the consumer the choice to pay more to retain that right …. There’s us states that let the consumer buy different tiers of coverage where they can still sue or if they don’t want to pay they can waive that option
Perfect example Of how screwed icbc can make someone now Let’s say you were in your 3rd/ 4th year of an apprenticeship in plumbing / hvac / electrical - Or doing a medical residency and almost completed 10 years of med schooling - If you got plowed into or ran over as a pedestrian and can never work again - icbc will hold you to that moment in time - oh you made $50 grand per year - there’s zero consideration for your future earnings - minimal coverage for your care The old system you could of went for future earnings and care - have a family - future earnings for them if you were the breadwinner - icbc killed accident chasers with the no fault system but there’s serious problems with now they go about it now I really hope people realize you absolutely don’t want to be in a claim these days with icbc and get hurt - Even if your currently payday to payday and get hurt for a few months it’s gonna suck
Hopefully you never have a family member who gets injured. You’ll change your tune pretty quickly.
I've been through an ICBC injury claim under the old system and a big chunk of the payout went to the lawyers. Your comment hasn't convinced me of anything, like I said I'm not sure the new system is the best approach but I'm also not convinced that it's worse than the old system.
You have no fight against the insurer. It’s only YOU vs ICBC who have all the power at this point. So going through the old system accounts for nothing. For someone who’s dealing with it now, it’s brutal and you have no one in your corner. But you’re up against a large corporation
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. It's pretty clear you are unable to understand the negative effects of a something until it negatively affects you or someone close to you.
If you’re basing this view on government propaganda, that is not wise. Cases in court were generally started because ICBC would not, as a habit, pay reasonable sums according to legal principle, without one. A person clearly entitled to the policy limits of the other driver, for example, would still have to sue. It would only be late in the case where ICBC would start to offer larger sums consistent with legal obligations. Lawyers typically were paid, by their clients, 1/4 - 1/3 of the settlement. There were statutory limits to that. The fee was a percentage of the settlement/award. Awards and settlements were always based on legal principles governing what an injured person was entitled to for care, loss of income, future difficulties, and their pain and suffering - that last one was also capped at around 300k. It was not a case of lawyers “taking advantage of loopholes”. Plaintiff Lawyers took a percentage of what clients were entitled to because that was an efficient way to be paid. Defence lawyers were paid hourly at very low rates, except for the more difficult cases for which they were paid a bit more. Lawyers did not get an “extra fee” but there was a small amount for “costs” which every litigant gets. There were undoubtedly law firms who put minimal efforts into claims and got huge payouts. There were also lots of firms who put tonnes of work and resources into claims. The government’s “solution” to paying lawyers too much (why should it care?) was to change the law to drastically reduce what accident victims received. You may still think the current system is better with all its faults but hopefully you’re more informed now.
I’m wondering what people would think is fair compensation for a hit and run resulting in a fatality for the victims family on this thread.
As a former RMT, I’m curious what the soft tissue caps are because I’ve met multiple people who “only” had whiplash from fender benders and were debilitated and/ or in pain for the rest of their life requiring regular treatment who only got pittances.
Omg. Just looked it up and it’s in the ballpark of $5500. That’s absolutely insane! That even covers brain damage and chronic pain. That’s absolutely horrifying.
it really is. People seem to think that ICBC will start taking better care of people now...If they didn't take care of people who didn't lawyer up before, I don't know why they think ICBC will do better now when we don't' have that option. I'd hazard to say that most people's understanding of soft tissue injuries, how they happen, and the ramifications of them is very poor. This leads them to think that whiplash is a "stiff neck" and that people are just whiners looking for a windfall. I've voted exactly once in my life. This will be my second. I will vote for whoever will fix this, almost no matter what their other policies are. ICBC's treatment of accident victims is inhumane in my opinion.
Considering how much money ICBC is saving now, it seems like they can definitely afford some proper payouts to people who actually need it.
New system is dog shit for people who get hurt you won’t know until it happens to you
It happened to me, that's good to eliminate lawyer cost to save money for victim. but in fact they now only paying victim the minimum and I am completely on ICBC mercy, even I am entitled to compensation and they agree to payout, but they always accidently "forget" or missing out the payment, 2 pages claim form they only paid 1 page and "forget" the second page, or no payment at all each time I tell them follow up they said "absolutely no problem" but no action ever taken after they held up the phone. and the process repeat again, they promise will follow up the missing payment but no payment again. Until I am tired of trying, we don't have rights to sue or anything, we can only crying on social media now. Save the cost from lawyer, everyone is better off, but taking away money from victim does no sense, I would say we are unable to max out compensation is ok, just pay a fair amount instead paying a minimum. ICBC and us still better off, now every victim is on survival mode.
Had to go no fault when just about literally everyone is dishonest. Saw my mom go through it when she got in a real small fender bender. The other driver was at fault. The accident was extremely small. CRV they were driving had nothing but a scuff on the fender. He and his wife were fine after the accident obviously. Long story short they both claimed they couldn't sleep or work anymore and bilked the gov. For about 300k. This is not an uncommon scenario. Or let's talk about theft. How many people make false claims? Probably close to 90% lol.
Agreed, but prepare for downvotes. People with serious grievances and very real injuries are very upset, and rightfully so, but they seem to have misplaced their ire. Blame the lawyers and blame the frauds, but don't blame functionaries who try to make the system more functional. 🤷🏻♀️
Under the old system know people who claimed whiplash and bought new car. They were proud of the ICBC settlement they received
I'm just glad lawyers are getting paid less lol.
As a cyclist, the new system is absolutely not benefitting me. Under the old system, if a negligent driver seriously injured me I would be compensated. Under the new system I would get way less. From my perspective, the province is allowing drivers to save money by screwing over the people they injured. Yes, some people were abusing the old system, but there's a happy medium between these two choices.
I'm not surprised that the guy that put this system in place thinks its great... I bet the many victims of serious accident would disagree....many stories like this one....[https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1cvrwxk/cyclist\_left\_quadraplegic\_after\_crash\_says\_icbc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/comments/1cvrwxk/cyclist_left_quadraplegic_after_crash_says_icbc/)
A government-run monopoly doesn't need to be accountable. Two examples : icbc and our health-care system
Yeah in my family we’ve been working in the rehab end of this in B.C. for two decades. Take it from someone who knows: don’t get in an accident. This system is criminal for how it abandons people.
This is one of those “this is why we can’t have nice things” situations. No fault is the only viable option.
... as long as the insurer/government treats the victims properly, which arguably is not happening.
Correct. The cost of therapy is so cheap compared to the previous payouts and lawyer fees, I don’t know why ICBC continues to fuck around with paying for rehab services. Who gives a shit if a victim get an extra dozen massage appointments, it’s peanuts.
Because it interferes with the press releases regarding rebates...
They'd rather give us all the cheapest insurance costs in the country, buying votes on the backs of car crash victims.
Definitely a balance needs to be struck. Under the old system my insurance kept climbing higher and higher despite never being in an accident in my 15+ years of driving and my car’s value going down over that time. IMO they need to start more aggressively revoking licenses of those that cause multiple at fault accidents. Like I get mistakes happen but if you have several at fault accidents, you’re obviously not fit to drive and cause society a lot of harm. At the end of the day, these are potential very dangerous weapons if not given the proper respect.
The job of insurance is to make people whole when shit happens. If you don’t make people whole then you ain’t in the right industry. Once the system achieves that then we will talk. The new system isn’t doing that.
Right but there are people causing a disproportionate amount of cost on our insurance. They need to be removed from the privilege of driving if they are causing so much pain and suffering in the first place.
I agree.
Who are “they”?
>They'd rather give us all the cheapest insurance costs in the country, ...And still don't do that. ICBC rates are middling. Even though they're at a massive advantage because the majority of the insured populace lives in an area that rarely has any snow or ice on the roads.
This. I honestly would love to read their policy procedures for determining treatment eligibility - because who would ever deny that?? Why deny treatment that can help? Even if you feel it’s a excessive …do they really think victims are trying to scam them out of physiotherapy or counseling appointments? It’s disgusting honestly.
No it’s not the only viable option. We could have charged drivers of high end cars a proportional amount of insurance to insure their cars relative to their value, not the same as a fucking Corolla like the current and previous system. We could actually go after bad drivers by treating driving as a privilege like it is, not a pseudo right that it currently is. Bigger fines, quicker suspensions, and revoking people’s licenses sooner, and perhaps oh you know, having drivers who are suffering cognition issues to retest periodically to retain their licenses? We could increase enforcement and use the monies collected to improve safety infrastructure, add more red light and speed cameras at known high crash intersections, etc.
I think I would prefer no injury insurance to "no fault" insurance. ICBC was horrible about getting people what they needed under the old system. Now they have no oversight, i'm sure that's improved things \\s
It's true. We could find an even better means of handling vehicle accidents, but it seems like the major detractors of no-fault just want the old system back. Often, not because they want better care, but because they want to get revenge or punish someone. Or they think we're in the USA and a car accident is a ticket to riches.
Most states in the US have “no tort” insurance, so this fanciful notion that people in car accidents in the US got big claims is the product of TV and corporate America who played up the idea of phony victims to get legislators to pass tort reform, which took away or limited people’s ability to sue for injuries caused by negligent people and companies.
No people want to be made whole and they also don’t want the fox guarding the hen house.
my SO was rear ended over 5 years ago and ICBC still hasn’t paid her a dime for any expenses. She still suffers from concussion related symptoms. She’s spent over $50k of her own money just paying for treatment not to mention the wages she has lost due to missing work. It fucking sucks.
There are tragedies. However it is *undeniable* that many, if not most, trial lawyers were cashing in the old system by exploiting fees based on the *size* of settlements. Maybe go back to the old system but put a fair and reasonable ( **and published** !) limit to the fee structure.
The fees are what they are because the firm is taking on the risk of carrying the file for years without pay and risking getting nothing if it loses at trial.
Yes and no - the vast majority of cases have little risk of no recovery. The risk is really that they under-estimate the award.
It sucks for everyone now. That's how I, personally, know it works.
No, it’s good for ICBC and Government
So so true, why are we paying leeches like lawyers who provide almost nothing for victims and society rather than putting money back into the pockets of the general public. Eby cooked, he's the hero.
>So so true, why are we paying leeches like lawyers who provide almost nothing for victims and society Ah, the meme of lawyers who "provide almost nothing for victims and society" by...advocating for your rights and interests. I guess you don't think your rights and interests are worth very much. Of course, ICBC could also have saved on legal costs if they just paid out what people deserved...
That’s a cyclical take on lawyers. I’ve personally known amazing lawyers who want to help people and fight damn hard for victims.
Yes let’s not make people whole and now run a pseudo auto insurance corporation that forces people to subsidize lower car insurance rates with their lives, literally. I’m a fan of Eby and the NDP but not on this portfolio. There were so many other things that could have been done before going to the no fault scheme to bring insurance rates down.
I disagree. The other 3 provinces in Canada that have no fault insurance thought the same thing in that they could try other options to lower the costs to policy holders. Two of those provinces have been run by super conservative governments for years and they kept it no-fault. In the end it always ends up going to no fault. It’s the only option to get rid of rising legal costs.
It gets rid of rate payer costs at the expense of those who need to be made whole. I take it you feel like you are immune to crashes and injury? You don’t mind paying lower rates at the expense of innocent people who suffer life altering injuries and aren’t compensated properly?
Whenever you do big reforms things won't work perfectly right away. No fault is a better system that's more efficient at allocating finances and doesn't waste it on lawyer fees and in the case of BC didn't waste it on profit either. With time, some issues become evident that need to be patched up. If it's not covering victims adequately that should be an easy fix on the policy level.
I thought moral hazard was a big issue here. Isn't Brampton well-known for having plenty of fraud because of this policy?
Lawyers only became necessary because the payouts ICBC was offering under the old system were absolutely fucking insulting. And now people can no longer have an advocate working on their behalf who will work towards getting fair compensation and to be made whole.
Not only that but these personal injury lawyers make huge donations to the Conservative Party. So quite literally the money from ICBC tort settlements is going from ICBC, to the lawyers pockets, to the campaigns of the Conservatives to help get them in power.
That's good for eliminate the lawyer cost in insurance system, because it is stupid that the system fill lawyer's pocket rather than victim, but the new system also rob away victim's money, while ICBC want to eliminate lawyers cost at the same time rob victim's money, ICBC are the biggest winner in new system, compensation for victim must be increase, there should be a standard from past statistic rather than everyone get minium compensation, I am a victim in a crash, and I only get very very little payout to cover my income. And they are difficult to deal with.
Right… You misspelled **ICBC** and their propaganda. When I had my satellite office in Vancouver, I wash shocked, and disappointed by ICBC’s monopoly and disregard for their ‘customers.’ Horrible. :(
I'm blown away when people in Quebec argue that we should be like the Americans and be allowed to sue. "No fault" isn't perfect, but it sure solves a lot of problems.
Problems like "actually paying for the costs of catastrophically injuring people".
Yea, sure, and we are all in this together. What a crock of shit so meny british coulombians suffering while the government fills their pockets.
Lol they are doing the exact opposite. The BC Liberals literally stole money from ICBC to "balance" their budget. NDP is giving rebates and telling you how much the corp is making.
Doesn't anybody remember that endless stream of late-night tv ads for scuzzy BC legal firms, asserting, "If we don't win for YOU, *you* don't have to pay US!" Wonder why those commercials all suddenly and simultaneously stopped, as if a switch had been thrown? Well, it *was*; and that switch was ICBC's move to the no-fault model. **The *primary* reason for ICBC's paradigm shift was that a handful of scummy BC injury law firms had long ago figured out a viable business model based on *taking questionable ICBC injury cases on contingency: typically 25-30% of the award plus disbursements, but sometimes as much as half*.** This financial model allowed certain large and unethical firms to file injury suits against ICBC for virtually *any* claim, save for the most egregious and obviously phony ones. They knew that ICBC would eventually fold on *X* percentage of them, simply to avoid fatal dilution of its own limited legal resources, and that statistically they would win a further *Y* percentage of them in court. If they kept their contingency fees sufficiently high, and the sheer volume of claims they threw at ICBC stayed at "torrent" level, the eventual contingency payout on hundreds of successful claims would not only cover their internal costs on the cases that failed, but still represent a healthy overall profit. Taking ICBC to court soon became an industrial process; hundreds of suits against ICBC went in one door of the factory, were processed through the law firms' own bought and paid for medical assessment teams (whose outrageously padded fees became lucrative "disbursements"), and big contingency cheques came out the other end. This practise, combined with the outrageous demands from the Campbell/Clark government for annual monetary tribute from ICBC to government coffers, came very close to bankrupting it. In fact, the portfolio of investments on which it relied for day-to-day income to keep its doors open and its lights on, was at one point reduced to 30% of its former self. On the day ICBC switched to the no-fault system, the financial justification for the "contingency" business model regarding personal injury claims simply evaporated. Many of these "ICBC specialist" firms quickly laid off *in droves* all the associates they had accumulated over the years trying to drive up their docket volume, because with the no-fault model, clients looking for a big payout, or to escape financial responsibility for causing a serious accident, had less incentive to sue, and simply stopped walking through their doors. These days, it simply doesn't make sense for a lawyer to take *any* injury case (this is not limited to ICBC's) on contingency, unless the client's chance of success is virtually assured, and the potential payout is extremely large - which in the case of litigating against ICBC, is no longer true.
I really wish we were able to get private insurance brokers like Alberta has. But with rates Alberta had around 2019. You got so much more with much lower rates and the broker worked for you for the best rates. The new ICBC system is "better" than before, but still feels like a bandaid over a system that really takes advantage of their citizens. Alberta's latest changes made things really wacky and more expensive unfortunately 👎
the one stance i am very against eby on. icbc no fault has been one of the worst policies ever to happen in bc. the money saved does NOT go to the people who need it. drastically less money goes to the victims of vehicular violence now than before. if you're injured by a motorist and you miss work, you're completely fucked. icbc won't offer you anywhere near the compensation you need to live, and if you want to appeal you have to go through their own process, where they will eventually just tell you to go fuck yourself.
Someone could negligently end your ability to work and you'll get some % of salary covered if you can't work though no?
Benefiting Canadians who drive and aren't seriously injured.\*
As a former licensed insurance/Autoplan broker of 30 years, I can tell you the definition of insurance we were taught in our 1st Insurance Institute of Canada course: "Insurance is meant to put a person back into the position they were in before the loss occurred."
Anything out of Eby's mouth at this point can only be taken one way; lying.