^ HAHAHAHA you suck at explaining situations to the adjuster.

I got hit by random blind left turn jumper and I got my JDM import repaired without being dissed by how much the local one is worth peanuts. I <3 ICBC.

WHAT THE FUCK. $11,000 worth of damage filled with chemicals, fuck that i rather have my car written off and get a new one


U wonna defend ICBC??
Will explain how i was fully motherfucking stopped at a red light waiting at intersection for it to turn green. Start slowly going intersection after the light turns green, BANG mothefucking idiotic psycho bitch cant drive shit runs red light at 100km T-boned me except luckily i was going slow so she hit me around my front bumper area (which still cost me $3000 to fix because of frame damage) now if i wasnt accelerating like a turtle my passenger would have been killed since the bitch would totally t-bone me from the side. Had 2 10 years old witness they saw the bitch ran red light (after the accident she decided to run , but after 200m she made a u-turn and came back to the gas station beside. bitch admited her fault but didnt have driver license on her. She made a phone call to her husband so he can bring her the driver license (go figure) we reported to ICBC. Bitch told ICBC i ran redlight which long story short ICBC made it 50/50. I had to go to court 3 fucking times just to clear this shit up. ICBC said ohhhh 2 10 years old doesnt count as witness. they have 2 pairs of eyes, it doesnt take a genius to figure whats red and whats green.


my mom was driving our van with my sis in the car, when she was passing the intersection the light turn yellow so way too late to stop so she had to cross, an old lady with a truck was waiting to turn left on the other side of the road. She started turning and hit my mom's van. Long story short, ICBC first said it was old lady's fault. Later the old lady hired some witness (put up signs saying WITNESS needed and will be rewarded with money) since when was it ok to bribe witness with cash?) so because now she has a bullshit witness ICBC said my mom was at fault. WTF, ok so obviously we gonnat take it to court, after serveral arguments with ICBC which was abolutely fucking bs 2 years later still hasn been resolved. Go figure. I guess the person with more moeny wins for this case i guess? one person offers $100 for witness, the next person bribes $1000 for each witness? is this how it works? WTF

the person who is fucking turning left at an intersection has to WAIT until it is safe to go. If not fuck i can make a left turn at any intersection at any given time i would like and can get away with with hitting any cars that have the right of way? BS Whether it was yellow light or not, the person turning left has to make the judgement whether the person can stop in time or not. It aint like the person going straight ran a red light than that would be different.

absolutely a fucking waste of time


all in all, fuck icbc

1. 2 10 years old really cannot be evidence. They can be bribed into saying anything with what a box of chocolates? They can't provide evidence in court either because of limited attention span, observation and articulation skills. It will stand in court but if that is all there is for evidence but once something is contradiction the 10 y.o. evidence is probably the first thing that's thrown out.
2. You suck for not getting a witness yourself at the scene.

And no the classic car is worth a lot more than 11000 so stfu.

I was saying too this is probably most money saving and reasonable way to deal with this. :thumbsup:

Do you insure (beyond basic Autoplan) with ICBC or a private insurer?

the first accident i only bought basic insurance with ICBC and the rest private. Later on i learned it was much harder to deal when u have an accident. Wasnt worth it so switched to full ICBC after



if i own a $80,000 g for example, sorry i wouldnt want my cabinet all filled with chemicals and shit, OEM vs work being done after is just never the same

NEVER

i see lots of hate and anger in this thread... we live in BC, we gotta deal with it ....
icbc are assholes, and you know what ? its ran by government.

Like it or not, children's testimonies are often sketchy at best. It's not surprising ICBC didn't keep them as witnesses.

Oh, and you've never owned a classic car, have you? If you had and you've dumped money and time into rebuilding it, there's no way you'd say you wouldn't want that car back. I guarantee it.

A buddy of mine rear ended me while on a car cruise. The front of his car was smashed up pretty badly (hood destroyed, radiator and support busted, sub-frame bent, bumper supports popped), yet my rear bumper barely looks like it was tapped. There's a few scratches where the paint is starting to chip off but absolutely nothing else. You'd never be able to tell that the damage caused to my buddy's car was inflicted from hitting mine.

Appearances aren't always everything.

"ran by government" socialism at its finest @_@

I've had my own personal dealings with ICBC when i got hit by a truck while he was passing me in the shoulder so it was 100% his fault. Unfortunately no witnesses stopped to give any details so when we reported it to icbc the Truck driver said i pulled into his lane and hit him.

I disputed the decision to the very top and had meetings with ICBC and even the investigator agreed that I wasn't at fault but there wasn't anything she could do. so i was screwed again...

Long story short ICBC is a government backed agency and they don't give 2 shits about anybody. But selling a kids car before he signs the waiver , if that really was the case, is a crime and the kid should be compensated for that, not the fact that he dropped 3g's into the car the day before.

In the article posted, it seems like ICBC has not been helpful in resolving this issue. It would be common sense for them to buy back or possibly nullify the sale of the wrecked car from the wrecker. Or yes, at the very least buy the family a replacement car. But nowhere in the article did I read any action of ICBC being helpful. It might have been the way the article was written that made ICBC look like the bad guy. But ICBC might have also been non-helpful as the article indicated. We won't know the whole story.

I understand you work for ICBC, there's no need to take anything personally man. I can side with you on the fact that ICBC will always pay for damages that are done in an accident. However, in the cases of vehicles being totaled there are a lot of incidents where the value of the car is never properly assessed. For example, anytime an AE86 is written off, ICBC never ever pays out the market value of those cars. Yes, the blue book value is peanuts, however the market value of these little (semi) classic cars is a lot higher than ICBC ever pays out on them.

You know what ICBC stands for right? IDIOTS CONTROLLING BRITISH COLUMBIA.

did anyone take note that ICBC profitted millions of dollars last year? And the fact that they have been busted for fraud? ICBC is the biggest joke around. Fuck them.

well apparently we got a fanboy in here defending them


go figure

:rolleyes:

i thought there was an article bitching that ICBC didnt make enough last year compare to couple years back or some bullcrap like that therefore they gonna raise the insurance so the profit margin will open up even more , as if millions wasnt enough

I don't work for ICBC. I work for an independent shop that deals with ICBC on claims for our customers. We nevr have problems with ICBC because.....

- Our customers have the proper insurance. They don't drive cars owned/insured by their parents and they didn't lie to ICBC about the intended use of the vehicle.
- We have a good relationship with ICBC. We don't try to fuck people over or take advantage of ICBC like countless crooked shops in The Lower Mainland do. Beleive me, ICBC knows what shops are really doing with their claims. If you're having a hard time in getting ICBC to pay to fix something, maybe you need to look at who you wnet to for the work.



As the the AE86 example given above, if your car is a "classic" and worth more than blue book, then maybe you should have bought extra insurance to reflect the real value of the car.

Do you think you can pay the same rates as the next guy for a car from the same year, but when yours gets wrecked you deserve more because it's a "classic"?

Where do you expect ICBC to get the money they use to pay off insurance claims and lawsuits?

I think the point was more that "blue book" value isn't always in line with "market value", not that an AE86 is anything particularly "special".

I think that was his point, too.

You can pay standard rates and get book value. The actuarial calculations for standard premium would be based on this. Or, you can insure according to the actual value of the vehicle and expect to pay more accordingly.

I'm not saying an owner deserves more for the car they have, but they are supposed to get paid out enough to buy a replacement. in the example I gave, I was just trying to say that ICBC never pays out the fair market value of these particular cars.

say I have a stock AE86 and it is totaled. ICBC offers me $800, but to buy another AE86 in similar condition I'd have to pay $3-4000 dollars for one. would you not agree that this situation is unfair?