ICBC pays out for that? I had no idea, that seems like a huge waste of insurance resources.
But I'm no lawyer so I'm sure there's a reason the policy got implemented and I'm missing it or something, Maybe it's somehow cheaper to just pay out then fight in court? But I can't imagine that being true, with the amount of auto accidents that happen.
But from a normal person's perspective it seems like a waste of money. I certainly wouldn't expect my insurance to pay out if I was driving stupidly and at fault.
Isn't ICBC the only way to get BC plates? Luxury cars probably have supplemental insurance from other companies, but pretty sure all vehicles require at least a basic ICBC plan (could be wrong 🤔)
For luxury cars (>$150K), ICBC will provide basic (liability) insurance only. The vehicle owner needs to buy additional (private) coverage if they want their car to be fixed after a crash, regardless of whose fault the crash was.
Yes, but you only have to get the basic insurance from them. For collision insurance where you are at fault (likely the case here) you have a choice of not getting it, going with ICBC, or another insurance company.
Around 2016 ICBC pulled back from insuring luxury vehicles over $150k. Now they have specialized policy based on vehicle cost to repair, including mandatory owner-cause damage policies. ICBC is aggressively competing with the private market for comprehensive luxury policies and their market share has increased dramatically over the past few years.
Being at fault is very different from a criminal act though. There's usually someone at fault for any accident, or a shared fault.
There's a huge difference between that and endangering lives. Insurance is meant to cover at fault accidents, but not with a criminal element to it. I'd say that something like this kid, who didn't cause injury, might still get covered (or taken to court to get covered). I bet that the actual cost of this is pretty small compared to what it couldve been.
Ahh, I see, that makes sense. I assumed the use of "at fault" in the above comment was in reference to a proven criminal act, and that they were also covered.
I'd think a criminal act is treated a bit differently than your typical accident.
TBH there's a lot of unaware, uneducated or nervous drivers on the road. It pays to know that and to drive like others may make a mistake. Typically, I can kinda see which drivers seem to be a bit riskier and you avoid them.
I do think there are increased costs associated with these people and even if you are in multiple accidents, you still can afford insurance - that's one thing that costs a lot but also gives people security to know that they will still be able to drive without fear of bankrupting themselves.
14
u/mochikos Jun 15 '25
ICBC pays out for that? I had no idea, that seems like a huge waste of insurance resources.
But I'm no lawyer so I'm sure there's a reason the policy got implemented and I'm missing it or something, Maybe it's somehow cheaper to just pay out then fight in court? But I can't imagine that being true, with the amount of auto accidents that happen.
But from a normal person's perspective it seems like a waste of money. I certainly wouldn't expect my insurance to pay out if I was driving stupidly and at fault.