will ICBC cover a rear-end collision if there was a damage already?
 

Hey guys, the title says it all. So will ICBC over it?

I've heard ICBC will ask for a non-refundable deductible??

I'm pretty sure someone asked this type of questions already, but i can't find it here. =/

Thanks.

If there is old damage to a panel that is involved in a new accident, what ICBC usually does it they put an allowance on that part.

So if your rear bumper had pre-existing damage, they might only cover a certain percentage of the paint time, and you would be responsible for the rest. Instead of full paint time, they only allow a portion of it, and the remainder would need to be settled between you and your shop of choice.

It depends on the shop as well. I've had pre-existing damage repaired by a shop at no charge even though it wasn't part of the pending claim. They were doing a full respray of the panels as part of the claim anyway, so they just went ahead of took care of it.

What's the current claim for, and what pre-existing damage is on the car?

could be different for every case, car, severity of damage and other things, a friend of mine has a G35 that he bought off a private seller who said it had "no accidents" it had a clean title no accident history and was a pretty good price, he did not have it looked at by anyone before buying it

he's been driving it without any problem's for a little over a year till he got rear ended by someone ICBC initially said they would repair it, they than found that it had been hit pretty bad in the back and previously written off in a accident by a private insurance company without having declared it salvage or rebuilt. The person who repaired it and sold it had only fixed the damage cosmetically, ICBC than said they would cover only a small portion of the damage as it had pre-existing damage.

I'm not sure what shop ICBC had paid to do the repairs but it was a hack job, the back doors no longer close properly and the back windows only roll down a certain amount different on each side and has a ton of rattles in the back, he tried to get ICBC to do something about it but they wouldn't budge and he didn't want to lawyer up

I dont get it, so.. if you had an existing scratch on the bumper but some guy rear ends you, icbc will only fix the rear end BUT WILL leave the scratch there?

how do they even fix it like that.. or do they go and scratch the bumper again after repaint :troll:

i got rear ended, had some previous damage from before, icbc just said okay to the shop to get me a new bumper

Depends on both previous damage and damage due to the accident. any panel that gets painted (at least in the shop that I work at) gets fully repaired.
Posted via RS Mobile

As said already, it really depends. Both on ICBC and the shop.
My dad had some scratches on the rear bumper caused by a previous accident he didn't both fixing, and the shop repainted the bumper for him.

Guys, it's not exactly rocket science... if ICBC would have had to repair that spot anyways, then they won't charge you anything.

Logically, if you have a scratch on your rear bumper and then a truck drives into it and the bumper needs to be replaced, the scratch is irrelevant and ICBC will pay for the whole repair.

On the other hand, it's also logical that if a truck drives into your rear bumper and leaves it all mangled and this is not an ICBC claim, then somebody scratches it, they will pay to repaint the bumper, not replace it and fix all the bent metal since that's all that would have had to have been done to fix the scratch.

Common sense...

I had damage on my rear left bumper before and then someone hit me on the exact same spot. Brought it to icbc and they just replaced the entire bumper... no charge.

If it's in the same spot you got hit then they'll most likely cover it. I was getting my door panel done in my first car and had prev Dmg around the area but because it had nothing to do with the claim, icbc didn't wanna cover it
Posted via RS Mobile

Most shops would have no issue taking care of it. They lose a couple hours at most of labour, but it's not worth losing the customer over it.

The claim is usually big enough to eat the minor costs anyways.