Lol, that's what I first thought. Buy a beater and go cruisin' for illegally parked cars.

Anyways, update:

100% other party fault
Posted via RS Mobile

You heard wrong

again not true :alone:

yes I did hear wrong, thats why I didnt make a statment as if I knew.

and I guess your right, I am wrong about the events in my own life. If you think ICBC wont fuck you over when they get a chance open your eyes and wake up from your fancy little dream world. give them the chance they will take it for one simple reason: It saves them MONEY!

Everytime i have had to deal with ICBC they have been nothing but fair.
Your choice of words towards a company is unfair to them :)

before July I would have agree'd with you. What Ive found is they will be fair when they have to. If you have a witness, or a strong legal case ect. I was rear ended by a semi truck, and because he only damaged the left tail light and surrounding area they have given me 50% of the blame, because the entire rear end of my car wasnt damaged. I didnt have a witness, the guy left the scene of the accident. Yes, a hit and run and I have somehow been found partially at fault. My choice of words is justified, in my opinion of course. Lets not argue, just trade opinions like adults

Jayhall is Revscene's answer to the Vicki Gabereau ads.

All bullshit aside.. the Demystifier stuff on ICBC's website is pretty good reading. Too bad it's not in Chinese.. :haha:

that is the best route

Absolutely untrue.

My sister was driving through an apartment parking lot once, bimbo in another car backed out of a spot and right into the side of sis's car. Bimbo was deemed 100% at fault for backing out when it wasn't safe to do so.

Kicker was, sis was driving our grandfather's '67 LeSabre... bimbo was driving a Civic. Back end of the Civic was demolished... front fender of the Buick barely had a scratch :)

There must be more to this story than your letting on, not trying to say that in an insulting way, that just doesn't make sense to me. I thought that in a rear end collision the car in back was always 100% at fault?

doesn't matter where you're parked - If you're not moving it's not your fault.

If you go through ICBC they shouldn't find you at fault.

Just to give u guys a heads up that there is NO way 2 pay a claim back that has bodily injuries. Basically u cant pay off the claim. Ur stuck with ur discount going up.

and if ur gf complains about pain. i would report it. but think about how many cases adjusters go through a day, they know that at worst ur gf would prob need painkillers and a day or 2 of rest. If u start pullin bullshit, ICBC will come back at you for lying.

just my 2cents

That is not entirely true. If the claim is settled before you renew your insurance, you can pay back the claim without losing your discounts. But the problem is most injury claims take more than 1 year to settle. You will most likely have to renew your insurance before you can pay back the claim. Once you lose the discount you cannot go back. That's why in 99.9% of the cases injury claim is not paid back by the party that's at fault.

actually thats not true at all. once an "injury" claim has been made, the claim is deemed non-payable. What u said is only true for damages 2 the vehicles with no injury to a person during the claim.

yes most injury claims take anywhere form 1month - 2.5yrs to settle. BUT the person at fault for the accident has already been charged with it. The discount will be deducted from that person on their next renewal without a chance of pay back.

That was based on what an adjuster told me a few years back. Maybe things have changed? :confused:

All in all go with what your adjuster/ICBC says.

LOL lots of shit has changed. Icbc updates every month LOL cuz ppl making claims alway finds loop holes.

Yes listen 2 ur adjuster, but becareful what u sign.

Maybe your gf's neck pain is from something else? ;)

Bodily injury (BI) is considered an KOL code 21. I would say about 99.9% of claims that have bodily injury, aren't not payable. The remaining 0.1% can be payable. There are claims that are paid back even with BI.

As for the crs discount: If it has never affect any previous polices in the past, and assuming no bodily injury, the customer can always pay the claim back to keep their discount.

lol. lets not go there.

so il give a lil update..

100 % other guys fault. since its a low velocity accident, icbc said they wont pay out any money, other than to reimburse for medical treatment.

In my wifes case her neck really did hurt, and the doctor told her to take 1-2 weeks off work. Still hurts. So we got a lawyer.

And this really wasnt a little bump. the lady reversed pretty hard and cracked the front of my car. it was a clai in an suv for those wondering.

just keep in mind it doesnt take much, even a little jerk can cause neck and shoulder pain. when dealing with icbc remember the claim adjuster will act nice, but are out to screw you out of any money. so my advice, if you dont feel 100%, dont accept NO for an answer.

goodjob

quick question
low velocity accident = icbc no pay?
or is it because the cost to fix your bumper is lower than the person's deductible?

Not exactly sure what the criteria for low velocity. It could be a combination of low speed, small amount of damage, or either.

If that's the case, they will only pay to fix the vehicle and any medical expenses incurred. Only problem is, they only take the vehicle into consideration, not anyone possibly hurt.
Posted via RS Mobile

thats the jist of it, in a nut shell. To expand a little more it was in traffic where two lanes merge into one from nordel onto the Alex Fraser. Guy in the truck was trying to not let me go on my turn to go, he started driving into my lane so I got out of his way. I was clear out of his way fully in the lane when he rammed me on purpose. I pulled over to exchange information and he left the scene of the accident. 50/50 somehow??

Not so.

It may be the case 99% of the time, but there are exceptions... like if someone swings unexpectedly into your lane and you hit him.

Case in point: I was heading down Kingsway westbound, coming up to Victoria. I was in the left lane coming up to a stale red, no cars between me and the stop line, and five or six cars lined up in the middle lane. I was slowing down, but not too much because I knew the light was about to change, and I had a good six or seven car lengths before the intersection.

Well, idiotstick in a Jetta at the back of the line in the middle lane decided to change lanes right in front of me, only he did it really quick and got straightened out the instant before I smacked into his rear end despite slamming on my brakes...

ICBC determined it was 100% my fault, according to the adjuster, because I'd hit his rear bumper square-on. He told me if I'd hit the end or corner of the Jetta's bumper, it would have shown that he cut me off and was still on an angle, but because I hit it straight-on, that indicated I should have had enough time to brake and avoid him. :failed:

Sounds like you have a RACFID

So it's not just a rear-ender, it's a lane change with a rear-ender. I'm assuming that your car was at an angle so when the other person hit you only 1 side was damaged?