BROADCASTS.com

b'

On the show this week: ICBC. The government-owned insurance company has run into financial difficulty as a result of both how the company has been operated, and political decisions to take money that it had been saved for the purpose of paying claims out of the company in order to balance the provincial budget.

Currently, drivers who are at fault for an accident are responsible for it. In some circumstances, such as where a driver is convicted of impaired driving, dangerous driving, or failing to remain at the scene of an accident, they would be in breach of their insurance coverage and they would be personally responsible for repaying ICBC for any loss.

There has been some suggestion that BC should move to a no-fault system, in which it would not matter who caused an accident. This would save money by avoiding litigation concerning who was responsible for an accident but might be inconsistent with community values that people who cause accidents should be responsible for them.

Recently announced changes would create an in-house ombudsperson, to review complaints. This is a ponderous idea as BC already has an ombudsperson and an auditor general. Duplicating these functions inside ICBC doesn\\u2019t seem likely to be beneficial.

Another initiative involves having ICBC offer some money to people who suffered a loss, without removing their ability to sue later. This proposal needs to be considered in the context of ICBC\\u2019s frequent attempts to settle claims for less than would be awarded if the cases were decided by a judge.

If people who are injured are offered, and accept, less than their claim is worth, either because they are desperate, or don\\u2019t have proper legal advice, this may make it uneconomic to sue ICBC later for the difference between this amount, and what they should have been paid.

Fundamentally, ICBC needs to be directed to change its approach to claims. If a claim is legitimate, ICBC should be promptly offering people what would be expected if they went to court. This would be both consistent with the duty of a publicly owned insurance company to treat people fairly and would save significant resources that are currently spent litigating claims.

Despite ICBC claims to the contrary, a review of cases that do proceed to trial demonstrates that ICBC is continuing to offer people less than the amounts be awarded in court.

Finally, the role of ICBC in administering things like drivers\\u2019 licences and paying for police traffic enforcement should be reconsidered. These are ordinarily government functions, that would not be paid for by private insurance companies. Having ICBC pay for these things is no different than taking money out of ICBC to pay for government programs.

Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.