[thumper]

so yeah i know this comes up from time to time, but icbc sent me a letter going blah blah you need more liability coverage these days blah blah... i started of with $1M, and now i'm at $3M, whereas the icbc letter suggests $4.5< on some stupid sticky note on the letter.

what do you all think is acceptable these days?

[nsx042003]

I may have this all wrong, but I feel that as long as I stick to the rules and don't drive recklessly, I won't be with an at fault accident that would require that much goddamn coverage.

I am at the bare minimum by the way, maybe I should up mine in case that's not how liability coverage works

[RevYouUp]

I may have this all wrong, but I feel that as long as I stick to the rules and don't drive recklessly, I won't be with an at fault accident that would require that much goddamn coverage.

I am at the bare minimum by the way, maybe I should up mine in case that's not how liability coverage works


Yea as long as your not at fault you're good. But there's also a 0.01% chance that you'll be at fault and that's how they get you to buy it.

I personally only have the basic 300k. I'm a pretty decent driver and I have a dashcam as well. Those cases where icbc pays out millions rarely happens.

[underscore]

How do the different percentages of fault work into that? Say you have 1M, the other drivers payout lands at 1.5M. What happens if you're 25% at fault? 50%? 75%?