Insurance in BC

[Canuck]

Basic insurance does not replace or give ACV on a vehicle. It is either your optional insurance or the third party liability insurance for the person who is at fault when they hit you. It has nothing to do with the basic insurance on the vehicle that is being insured.

It has everything to do with basic insurance coverage.

You're just looking at it from the wrong angle. I'm not talking about first party coverage but third party coverage. Maybe you will understand by reading this example ICBC gives for "basic insurance coverage" on its website:

Protection if you’re responsible for a crash
Third Party Liability coverage protects you when you're at fault in a crash and another motorist makes a claim against you. Your Basic Autoplan covers up to $200,000 of their injury costs and vehicle damage.

Here's an example
Jay drove into another car as he was turning. That car was badly damaged, and both people in it were hurt. Jay felt awful about the crash, but he knew that his third party liability coverage would look after the costs to repair the other car, and for the medical costs and wage losses for the people who were in it.

That "and vehicle damage" that I bolded and underlined above is not for your own vehicle under basic coverage but for the other vehicle involved in the accident. So, for instance, if someone in any vehicle, say a Honda, writes off a performance ("luxury") vehicle, ICBC still pays, and if ICBC has given that performance vehicle replacement coverage, then ICBC pays replacement coverage. So it still comes from ICBC. That is, unless the Honda driver in my example is from out-of-province, but those accidents in BC are very few and far between.

So, instead of raising everyone's basic insurance coverage to cover the high costs of performance vehicles, ICBC raises the costs of basic insurance coverage of performance, what it calls "luxury", vehicles only (actually doubles it) to protect themselves for the costs to replace these vehicles, whether on an actual cash value or replacement cost basis. This is ICBC's logic when it comes to this rate increase. You can't avoid paying higher "basic insurance" rates on a luxury vehicle in BC. You can only buy optional insurance coverage. That's why this increase has everything to do with basic coverage in BC.

 

[cmt489]

It has everything to do with basic insurance coverage.

You're just looking at it from the wrong angle. I'm not talking about first party coverage but third party coverage. Maybe you will understand by reading this example ICBC gives for "basic insurance coverage" on its website:

Protection if you’re responsible for a crash
Third Party Liability coverage protects you when you're at fault in a crash and another motorist makes a claim against you. Your Basic Autoplan covers up to $200,000 of their injury costs and vehicle damage.

Here's an example
Jay drove into another car as he was turning. That car was badly damaged, and both people in it were hurt. Jay felt awful about the crash, but he knew that his third party liability coverage would look after the costs to repair the other car, and for the medical costs and wage losses for the people who were in it.

That "and vehicle damage" that I bolded and underlined above is not for your own vehicle under basic coverage but for the other vehicle involved in the accident. So, for instance, if someone in any vehicle, say a Honda, writes off a performance ("luxury") vehicle, ICBC still pays, and if ICBC has given that performance vehicle replacement coverage, then ICBC pays replacement coverage. So it still comes from ICBC. That is, unless the Honda driver in my example is from out-of-province, but those accidents in BC are very few and far between.

So, instead of raising everyone's basic insurance coverage to cover the high costs of performance vehicles, ICBC raises the costs of basic insurance coverage of performance, what it calls "luxury", vehicles only (actually doubles it) to protect themselves for the costs to replace these vehicles, whether on an actual cash value or replacement cost basis. This is ICBC's logic when it comes to this rate increase.

No, I am not looking at it from the wrong angle and I know exactly how auto insurance works. Hell, the majority of my work day is suing insurers to enforce coverage for insureds.

I know full well that basic coverage does not provide cover for your own vehicle and that it is for the vehicle that you damage, thus my referral to third party liability.

As it stands, ICBC does not want to pay for luxury vehicle repair and they are trying to obtain legislation that says they will not provide ANY insurance for luxury vehicles at all - basic or otherwise. If they do not receive any insurance money from the luxury vehicle owners, then they are paying out without receiving anything from those owners. Plus, most accidents DO NOT result in a vehicle write off, but rather, a repair. Thus, my comment about the cost of the bodywork still stands.

It should also be noted that third party liability insurance does not pay replacement cost and only pays ACV.

In addition, profit for insurance companies is in the excess insurance, not the basic insurance. By cutting off optional insurance for these vehicles instead of charging a greater premium, they are further compromising their ability to recover for these claims.

 

[Canuck]

No, I am not looking at it from the wrong angle and I know exactly how auto insurance works.

Then you should know that ICBC pays out when a performance luxury vehicle is damaged or totalled under the at-fault insured's basic insurance coverage (unless that vehicle is from out-of-province, which is very rare). Do you really dispute this fact?

In addition, profit for insurance companies is in the excess insurance, not the basic insurance.

This is not about making a profit. This is about covering costs. The Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) lost $256.8 million on basic coverage last year, according to the Crown auto insurer’s annual report, which was released last week.

This gave rise to the doubling of the premium for basic coverage for luxury vehicles.

ICBC needed to find ways to cover the costs of basic insurance coverage since it was bleeding money and it can only raise rates by so much. The logic behind doubling luxury vehicle's basic insurance is the cost ICBC was paying to repair/replace these vehicles under basic coverage of the at-fault driver. In fact, these funds come from the basic insurance coffers, if the at-fault BC driver caused the damage, as you must know.

Thus, this rate increase was all about basic insurance coverage!

Hell, the majority of my work day is suing insurers to enforce coverage for insureds.

I've been practicing insurance defence for major insurers in BC, including ICBC, for over 25 years. Telling me you are plaintiffs' counsel suing insurers doesn't change any of the facts I have set out. I've dealt with many plaintiffs' counsel over the years who have been wrong on many issues. Your credentials do not change facts.

As it stands, ICBC does not want to pay for luxury vehicle repair and they are trying to obtain legislation that says they will not provide ANY insurance for luxury vehicles at all - basic or otherwise.

Hence the doubling of rates for basic insurance for luxury vehicles! Can't you see this proves my point?!

It should also be noted that third party liability insurance does not pay replacement cost and only pays ACV.

You're plaintiffs' counsel for insurance claims and you state this clearly wrong allegation? In fact, the insured under a third party liability policy is owed a duty of defence and indemnity up to the policy's limits. When it comes to indemnity, in BC the leading case on the issue of replacement cost vs. actual cash value is Nan v. Black Pine Manufacturing Ltd. (1991), 55 B.C.L.R. (2d) 241 (C.A.) where our Court of Appeal states:

"Whether or not the damages based on such costs should then be adjusted, either for pre-loss depreciation or post-reinstatement betterment, will depend on what is reasonable in the circumstances. No rules can be fashioned by which it can invariably be determined when such allowances should be made. It must, in all cases, turn on the facts peculiar to the case being considered."

I got ICBC to pay me $5,000 accelerated damages/diminished value on my 2012 Leaf last year when my daughter was rear-ended causing $15k damage that was repaired, also at the cost of ICBC's at-fault driver. This all came from his basic coverage. I told them when I sell it I have to declare the repaired damage and that gives rise to the diminished value claim.

If I drive my new P100D off the Tesla lot and someone totals it on the way home, I am getting replacement cost from his basic coverage policy.

That's why our Court of Appeal says each case is decided on its own facts. I won't get new for old on my 2014 Tesla but I certainly would on day 1 -- from the tortfeasor -- who in turn is indemnified from his basic insurance coverage -- not my own policy.

I'm really surprised you don't know this given the stated nature of your work.

 

[cmt489]

While I will confess to not doing plaintiff auto insurance, a brief review of the case law suggest that with automotive claims, in exceptional circumstances you may get accelerated depreciation for an accident but, let's be honest, replacement cost on a car is replacement with a used vehicle of same like and kind, not ordering a new one direct from the manufacturer. The only time I could see that applying would be in a case such as having your car totaled while driving off the lot - oh, never mind, I see you stated this in one of your several edits of your post.

"I'm really surprised you don't know this given the stated nature of your work."

I didn't realize that I needed to write a legal brief on this page. I am now on notice and will structure future posts accordingly.

That said, I also can't imagine engaging with you much more on anything else given your insulting tone and approach to this whole thing.

 

[Canuck]

in exceptional circumstances you may get accelerated depreciation for an accident

It does not require "exceptional circumstances" at all. It's an established cause of action in tort and damages are easy to prove. Would you pay the same for a fixed crashed vehicle as opposed one that's never been in a crash? Of course not. ICBC pays out on it all the time when you bring it to their attention and that's why you may think it may be the exception, when in fact insurers just try to keep it secret:

“Accelerated depreciation is known as one of the largest hidden secrets in the car insurance industry.
Most people don’t know, but there are ways to get back your money; you can hire a lawyer or take it to small claims court. For the most part, they settle out of court, because the insurance companies don’t want precedent cases,” says Rob Fournier, owner of The Car Whisperers Automotive appraisal service.

There's lots of threads here about it with owners collecting damages on accelerated depreciation/ diminished value claims for accidents involving their Teslas that are not their fault.

I didn't realize that I needed to write a legal brief on this page. I am now on notice and will structure future posts accordingly.

You said:

Hell, the majority of my work day is suing insurers to enforce coverage for insureds.

You don't need to write a legal brief to know the simple insurance issues we debated if the majority of your work day is suing for coverage but if you don't know, don't post false allegations like this one:

It should also be noted that third party liability insurance does not pay replacement cost and only pays ACV.

People read your posts, and when you state you're a lawyer they will believe what you say. I've been trying to educate people here on diminished value claims:

Diminished Value Claims

That said, I also can't imagine engaging with you much more on anything else given your insulting tone and approach to this whole thing.

That's fine by me. I thought I was just being factual and hopefully you've learned something anyway.

 

[Cripps]

Hi there, Does anyone know if any provincial insurers are giving discounts now (2018) to vehicles with enhanced safety features such as adaptive cruise control, collision avoidance. It seems almost quaint that there is still a discount for a theft warning device on vehicles!

Is the Telsa Motor Club involved in any advocacy such as letter-writing campaigns to promote the safety of Tesla vehicles with insurers and secure safe-vehicle discounts?

Thanks

 

[aslam]

@Cripps I'm waiting for my custom order (MS 75D) to be delivered in March and I'm planning to go with ICBC + Belaire after having read all the comments in this thread. When I got quotes for Bellaire, they did not have any such discount but I would be curious to hear of anyone who does have that. We might be ahead of our time, on this one. Not many vehicles have this as an option thus far so it isn't probably high enough on the radar screens of the insurance companies. But I think you're right that it would be a good idea for us to leverage TMC for a letter-writing campaign.

 

[aslam]

Anyone in here who has bought their optional insurance from Belaire (@Doug_G, I'm looking at you) have any experience putting claims through them? Is it as easy as with ICBC or do you have to do more work to get the claims paid out?

 

[Doug_G]

Anyone in here who has bought their optional insurance from Belaire (@Doug_G, I'm looking at you) have any experience putting claims through them? Is it as easy as with ICBC or do you have to do more work to get the claims paid out?

I don't deal with Belaire.

 

[aslam]

I don't deal with Belaire.

@Doug_G Oops. Sorry I read it wrong. It wasn't you, it was @Paul Carter. Paul, do you have any experience with Belaire and their claims process?

 

[Paul Carter]

@Doug_G Oops. Sorry I read it wrong. It wasn't you, it was @Paul Carter. Paul, do you have any experience with Belaire and their claims process?

Sorry, no. but I'm still with them.

 

[cmt489]

In 2005 I went through a claim with Belaire when they were still Canadian Direct. Another driver wasn't looking and pullout out into me. She admitted fault and the claim was 100% on her insurance. It was more complicated than ICBC at the time but it is my understanding that they have simplified the process. Knock on wood, I haven't had to deal with a claim since then.

 

[aslam]

In 2005 I went through a claim with Belaire when they were still Canadian Direct. Another driver wasn't looking and pullout out into me. She admitted fault and the claim was 100% on her insurance. It was more complicated than ICBC at the time but it is my understanding that they have simplified the process. Knock on wood, I haven't had to deal with a claim since then.

@cmt489 Thanks for the first hand experience. Glad to hear it. Let's hope (fingers crossed) I don't have to use their claims process but in case I do, I want to make sure it isn't such a pain in the neck that I will have wished I stayed with ICBC. Not that I'm an ICBC-lover or anything, but at least they have streamlined the claims process in recent years to the point where you don't even have to go into their claims centre anymore. You just go straight to the repair shop and they handle everything. Not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but that's objectively pretty convenient, if you ask me.

 

[beeeerock]

@cmt489 Thanks for the first hand experience. Glad to hear it. Let's hope (fingers crossed) I don't have to use their claims process but in case I do, I want to make sure it isn't such a pain in the neck that I will have wished I stayed with ICBC. Not that I'm an ICBC-lover or anything, but at least they have streamlined the claims process in recent years to the point where you don't even have to go into their claims centre anymore. You just go straight to the repair shop and they handle everything. Not sure how it works in other jurisdictions, but that's objectively pretty convenient, if you ask me.

I had a windshield done through Belair Direct (it might have still been Canadian Direct at that time) with no issues. That was in 2015 and no other claims with them since.

They've got an app now, that potentially allows you to save on their insurance based on your driving style. I'm trying it out, but so far it seems like you have to drive like a granny that regularly runs orange lights if you want to see any savings. It detects acceleration (chill mode acceleration will trigger it) and braking and reduces your potential discount based on the frequency of the occurences. Absolutely no contextual awareness, so if you want to avoid a 'braking incident', you're better to just run the light... which is completely stupid if the idea is to adjust your insurance down if you're a safe driver.

 

[cmt489]

I had a windshield done through Belair Direct (it might have still been Canadian Direct at that time) with no issues. That was in 2015 and no other claims with them since.

They've got an app now, that potentially allows you to save on their insurance based on your driving style. I'm trying it out, but so far it seems like you have to drive like a granny that regularly runs orange lights if you want to see any savings. It detects acceleration (chill mode acceleration will trigger it) and braking and reduces your potential discount based on the frequency of the occurences. Absolutely no contextual awareness, so if you want to avoid a 'braking incident', you're better to just run the light... which is completely stupid if the idea is to adjust your insurance down if you're a safe driver.

I refuse to let insurance companies track me under the guise of proposed savings for many reasons. I don't trust insurers as far as I can throw them!

 

[Paul Carter]

I refuse to let insurance companies track me under the guise of proposed savings for many reasons. I don't trust insurers as far as I can throw them!

Yea feel like I'm in the same boat. Right now I'm using a FleetCarma device to contribute data for charging. I hope they don't ever look at my acceleration and breaking. Its Autopilot not my driving. (Did I do that right?) LOL.

 

[beeeerock]

I refuse to let insurance companies track me under the guise of proposed savings for many reasons. I don't trust insurers as far as I can throw them!

I agree. I read through the terms very closely and they 'claim' the data doesn't get used in ways I consider questionable. You run the app for a few months and once they've learned how you use your car, they offer a discount and you uninstall the app. They won't charge you more or use the information against you.

However... the app is so useless, I question whether they're more interested in when/where and how much you drive than how you drive....and perhaps simply use acceleration and braking events as excuses to drop the discount from the maximum possible.

What I've noticed in the weeks I've been running it...

• I'm more likely to push the envelope on an orange light, because stopping for the red will likely count against me as 'hard braking'.
• Accelerating briskly to speed from an at-grade intersection onto the highway will trigger an acceleration 'incident', so I'm better to turn out and accelerate slowly, perhaps forcing someone on the highway behind me to slow down.
• Defensive driving can count against you... I saw a deer on the highway the other day and slowed down even though it was clearing the road. I know where there's one, there's generally two or three. Sure enough, another came up the bank and onto the road. I was docked a 'minor braking' incident because I elected not to hit the deer or attempt to steer around it.

Frankly, the app has tempted me to drive more dangerously than is my typical habit. That tells me the app is probably a bigger hazard than it is a useful tool. I intend to provide that feedback to Belair!

 

[Paul Carter]

Hmmm... renewal went up a lot! Like 4,067 now, an 82% increase. WTF. Shopping around now.

 

[beeeerock]

Hmmm... renewal went up a lot! Like 4,067 now. WTF. Shopping around now.

ICBC only? And would this have anything to do with the rumoured $150k classification?

 

[Paul Carter]

ICBC only? And would this have anything to do with the rumoured $150k classification?

No this is the optional. The ICBC was already double due to over 150k for basic with 200k liability only.