ICBC Reduce Rates for auto insurance

[alex.w *//]

starts october 1, 2009 icbc will drop 3% optional insurance, and rates for basic insurance stays the same

ICBC has a little bit of good news for drivers starting Oct. 1.

The provincial government insurance company expects to freeze basic rates, and reduce optional coverage rates by three percent.

“That’s an average,” said ICBC spokesman Mar Jan Vrem. “I can’t speak to specific rates.

“We crunched the numbers, and it’s a three-per-cent reduction overall.”

B.C. drivers must purchase basic insurance from ICBC, but optional coverage can be bought through a variety of private insurance companies.

“Fifty-five per cent of our business is basic, and 45 per cent is optional, so I think that shows that most people are happy with us,” said Jan Vrem, who noted that the average customer is paying $18 less for auto insurance than five years ago.

ICBC reported net income of $497 million for the year ending December 31, 2008, down $145 million or 23 per cent from the previous year.

Colin Brown, COO of Canadian Direct Insurance, which competes for optional coverage, questioned why ICBC is returning so little to drivers.

“They made half a billion dollars — that’s a lot of money,” said Brown. “They’re giving back $15 a head, but they made over $200 per driver.”

Brown also questioned why, with such a large profit, basic insurance — for which ICBC has a monopoly — isn’t going down.

“Does that mean that only competition brings their prices down?” asked Brown.

“I’m disappointed for the drivers of British Columbia.”

ICBC credited its strong financial performance with a moderation in claims and the corporation’s disciplined investment strategy.

The corporation said its conservative investment strategy generated a rate of return of just over one percent in 2008 during one of the most difficult economic times in memory.

“Our strong financial position allows us to both reduce rates and contribute more to our retained earnings which will continue to cushion customers’ rates during these volatile economic times.’’ said Jon Schubert, ICBC’s President and CEO, who thanked drivers for doing their part by driving safely and reducing crashes to help keep rates low and stable.

[iMpulZ]

good! im getting sick of paying for expensive premiums
and maybe now i can afford to pay for $300 deductibles =)

[RRxtar]

<-- waits for a flood of uninformed anti ICBC posts from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

[taylor192]

Public companies should not turn a profit.
Canada Post turns a profit too.

[RRxtar]

the either turn a profit and everyone gets mad at them or they lose money and have to jack up their rates and everyone gets mad at them.

[!SG]

or break even as a public sector company should. evaluate next years allowed revenue based upon either last years reported expenditure, or for something more accurate, an average of the previously few years.

[jackmeister]

why dont they just remit all profits and attribute all deficits to the government as they should?

overall, they should be in the black.

[Black SC2]

And yet I'll still pay less money, for better service and coverage through private optional coverage.

[falcon]

fuck ICBC.

My Skyline with more optional coverage and %15 discount was 181/month. now I'm paying 188/month for a 60HP Kei car, with less optional coverage and a %20 discount.

bunchacrooks. his "excuse" was Hondas get stolen more. Oh... ok then, so I guess my 230HP car had a less chance of crashing than my 60HP Honda Beat.


and I'm not a big "Hate on ICBC" guy.. since my Dad has worked there for 30 years, but shit do their insurance brackets NOT make sense.

[jigga250]

Originally Posted by falcon

. his "excuse" was Hondas get stolen more. Oh... ok then, so I guess my 230HP car had a less chance of crashing than my 60HP Honda Beat.

dude its based on STATISTICS....how much they pay out for claims on Hondas, vs other makes. Its not just crashing, its theft, vandalism, etc. I agree its BS that they're making 500mil/yr in profit, but thats because they're equally overcharging everyone.

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by RRxtar

the either turn a profit and everyone gets mad at them or they lose money and have to jack up their rates and everyone gets mad at them.

Originally Posted by !SG

or break even as a public sector company should. evaluate next years allowed revenue based upon either last years reported expenditure, or for something more accurate, an average of the previously few years.

omfg NO WAY!! MaSSIVE OWNAGE! BAN HIM FOR GETTING OWNED SO HARD!!!

in all seriousness, !SG is right about public sector companies breaking even. i'd also liek to bring up our arguement on how private insurance companies will pay out more $ for injury claims than a monopolized company like ICBC. RRxtar warned and ban from future icbc threads

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by falcon

fuck ICBC.

My Skyline with more optional coverage and %15 discount was 181/month. now I'm paying 188/month for a 60HP Kei car, with less optional coverage and a %20 discount.

bunchacrooks. his "excuse" was Hondas get stolen more. Oh... ok then, so I guess my 230HP car had a less chance of crashing than my 60HP Honda Beat.


and I'm not a big "Hate on ICBC" guy.. since my Dad has worked there for 30 years, but shit do their insurance brackets NOT make sense.

you can thank the freedom of information act for allowing you to dig up ICBC stats on how the % of that particular car getting into an accident, broken into, etc. let us know the results, and maybe a media broadcaster if theyre really significant

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

omfg NO WAY!! MaSSIVE OWNAGE! BAN HIM FOR GETTING OWNED SO HARD!!!

in all seriousness, !SG is right about public sector companies breaking even. i'd also liek to bring up our arguement on how private insurance companies will pay out more $ for injury claims than a monopolized company like ICBC. RRxtar warned and ban from future icbc threads

Did you ever examine my post about how an injury claim is paid out, and who pays it out initially?

Just sayin'.

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by Blinky

Did you ever examine my post about how an injury claim is paid out, and who pays it out initially?

Just sayin'.

icbc bills themselves out because theyre fighting their own insured. so why would they want to pay you, the injured, the highest dollar amount possible when they could save themselves money and pay the lowest dollar amount reasonable? unless the other driver isn't covered, icbc picks up the bill at the end of the day, and rates go up.

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

icbc bills themselves out because theyre fighting their own insured. so why would they want to pay you, the injured, the highest dollar amount possible when they could save themselves money and pay the lowest dollar amount reasonable? unless the other driver isn't covered, icbc picks up the bill at the end of the day, and rates go up.

I'll spell it out for you.

Second case (other party underinsured) would be identical for public vs private.

First case, ICBC pays out ... whatever. X dollars.

Now for two (private) insurance companies. You're insured under Gayco and get rearended by a driver insured under Illiberty. You are injured and make a claim.

Gayco is going to pay you... whatever... Y dollars. Then they go after (subrogate against) Illiberty for Y dollars. What is going to be easier for them to recover? Y dollars, when Y is large, or Y dollars, when Y is relatively small? What is their expected recovery from Illiberty? They may get 100%, but they might also get 50%. Heck, maybe the court clears Illiberty's client of all liability, leaving Gayco entirely on the hook for your claim.

Illiberty is going to fight to reduce their liability every step of the way, so let's say Gayco's lawyers are good and recovery is 98% of the claim that they paid out.

Is there really incentive for Gayco to pay you more, when there is no guarantee of them getting back any money? What offers a better situation for their shareholders - a 2% loss on a $20 000 claim or a 2% loss on a $50 000 claim?

[00EM1]

Im not saying I like ICBC but the story's I have heard over the year about how bad private insurance was before ICBC makes me glad to have them.

When my Uncle was my age he smashed up his camaro, after that was DENIED insurance. I mean etleast with ICBC you only go up 3 steps.
If there wasn't ICBC and being a man under 25 I know I would be paying out the ass for private insurance while a 26 year old woman would pay almost half. In BC you cant get private insurance without 10 years experience and a clean history, thats why its so cheap they only take the least likely to crash.
I know its easy to bash on ICBC and we all pay to much and hate them but for the majority of peoples being young on this site there probally a lot beter than private.

[RRxtar]

Originally Posted by BNR32_Coupe

omfg NO WAY!! MaSSIVE OWNAGE! BAN HIM FOR GETTING OWNED SO HARD!!!

in all seriousness, !SG is right about public sector companies breaking even. i'd also liek to bring up our arguement on how private insurance companies will pay out more $ for injury claims than a monopolized company like ICBC. RRxtar warned and ban from future icbc threads

are you on meth right now? what are you getting excited about?


have we all forgotten about the $100 cheques ICBC cut to every insured driver a couple years ago because they turned a profit? and that profit was largely because of good returns on investments, similar to what they are saying this time around. $100 might seem like peanuts but if you figure 1million (just a random guess, most likely more) insured drivers in BC, thats $100million they gave back. and thats after rates had been frozen for nearly a decade, including a few years of serious losses.

[RRxtar]

Originally Posted by 00EM1

Im not saying I like ICBC but the story's I have heard over the year about how bad private insurance was before ICBC makes me glad to have them.

When my Uncle was my age he smashed up his camaro, after that was DENIED insurance. I mean etleast with ICBC you only go up 3 steps.
If there wasn't ICBC and being a man under 25 I know I would be paying out the ass for private insurance while a 26 year old woman would pay almost half. In BC you cant get private insurance without 10 years experience and a clean history, thats why its so cheap they only take the least likely to crash.
I know its easy to bash on ICBC and we all pay to much and hate them but for the majority of peoples being young on this site there probally a lot beter than private.

like I say in every thread similar to this. if you're a driver under the age of 25 and have 2 or 3 speeding tickets, and one accident on their driving record (as I would guess 80% of REVscene is), give an insurance broker in Toronto or Calgary a call and see how much you would be paying there, IF you are lucky enough that they will still insure you. Yes, its an option for Private insurers.


edit: fuckit. i did it for you.
thru www.carinsurance.ca i made up a 20 year old male with a full drivers licence with 2 speeding tickets in 2007 and one at fault accident in 2007 living in downtown toronto.

car: 2004 Honda Civic Si Hatchback

$ 812.30 / month ($ 9,464 for 1 year)
Coverage Details
Third Party Liability $1,000,000
Accident Benefits basic
Direct Compensation Property Damage included
Uninsured Automobile included
Family Protection Endorsement $1,000,000
Collision (deductible) $500
Comprehensive (deductible) $500

[BNR32_Coupe]

"After reporting net income of $390 million in 2004, the publicly-owned Insurance Corporation of British Columbia mailed rebate cheques totaling $100 million to provincial motorists in September. It was the third such repayment by ICBC in recent years, following the distribution of $47 million and $218.5 million in 'road safety dividends' in 1998 and 2000, respectively.

Despite those sizeable rebates, ICBC's balance sheet still shows retained earnings of $925 million."

Check out my source: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/11/03/ICBCSuccess/

Yeah, um, you want a hit of my meth? Seems to be doin' me good...

[slammer111]

^ $50m profit isn't that much. That's less than $20 per person (last time I checked, BC has about 3m people). Spread that over a year, and maybe they make what, $1.50 a month off you? ZOMG!

I'd be more pissed at stuff like the Fast Ferries.

And like buddy said, if you think your brackets are bad, try motorcycles.

[BNR32_Coupe]

Originally Posted by slammer111

^ $50m profit isn't that much. That's less than $20 per person (last time I checked, BC has about 3m people). Spread that over a year, and maybe they make what, $1.50 a month off you? ZOMG!

I'd be more pissed at stuff like the Fast Ferries.

And like buddy said, if you think your brackets are bad, try motorcycles.

so what happened with the remaining 925 MILLION of RETAINED EARNINGS?
let's jump across to a few threads and visualize what 925 MILLION looks like:



and here's how much ICBC gave back to us:


^HALF of this pallet of money

So there you have it. The 10 skids of money that ICBC made were shipped somewhere else and nobody knows what happened to it. case closed, end of story.

[hotjoint]

any money saved is good

[!SG]

that i will argue for. ICBC compensates lowered insurance rates for the highest risk for an insurer (16-25) by charging higher rates to the all the other age bracket groups.

however, purely looking at it from a public sector company and following the rules set for public sector companies, they should not be turning a profit. They can write off more expenses, but should not record a profit. They could however write down a "set aside" fund for future expenses if their accountant was smart. being a public sector company means all financials have to be transparent, so thus putting a large amount in plain view as recorded profit isnt a good thing. Why not give that money to subsidize the police, or other PREVENTATIVE type measures. ICBC has a monopoly on BC auto insurance, but being public sector, they have to be fully transparent to all their dealings.

i remember trying to see how much insurance i would pay if i was in the US for my car, my age and everything current. id save about $50 bucks if i was insured in washington state.

Originally Posted by RRxtar

like I say in every thread similar to this. if you're a driver under the age of 25 and have 2 or 3 speeding tickets, and one accident on their driving record (as I would guess 80% of REVscene is), give an insurance broker in Toronto or Calgary a call and see how much you would be paying there, IF you are lucky enough that they will still insure you. Yes, its an option for Private insurers.


edit: fuckit. i did it for you.
thru www.carinsurance.ca i made up a 20 year old male with a full drivers licence with 2 speeding tickets in 2007 and one at fault accident in 2007 living in downtown toronto.

car: 2004 Honda Civic Si Hatchback

$ 812.30 / month ($ 9,464 for 1 year)
Coverage Details
Third Party Liability $1,000,000
Accident Benefits basic
Direct Compensation Property Damage included
Uninsured Automobile included
Family Protection Endorsement $1,000,000
Collision (deductible) $500
Comprehensive (deductible) $500

[hotjoint]

I was having a convo with a few friends trying to figure out what the "cheapest" amount anyone pays for insurance regardless if of age, car type, discount etc.... Forgot how we figured it out but I believe it was $1500 a year. Anyone pay less then $1500 a year for insurance after everything? I'm just happy that I'm pay $1900 for my 02 celica

[Roach]

Originally Posted by slammer111

^ $50m profit isn't that much. That's less than $20 per person (last time I checked, BC has about 3m people). Spread that over a year, and maybe they make what, $1.50 a month off you? ZOMG!

I'd be more pissed at stuff like the Fast Ferries.

And like buddy said, if you think your brackets are bad, try motorcycles.

That's assuming every person in B.C. has insurance.

Kev