Hello everyone, I thought I would start a thread about today's announcements on ICBC's move to No-Fault insurance (no matter what the government wants to call it) starting in May. They in fact studiously avoided the words "no fault", as it seems to have a very negative connotation in BC, frankly because I think it is misunderstood. I know I have issues with the government hand in the pocket of ICBC repeatedly over the years, but that sort of political stuff isn't the point of this announcement (or my post). They did talk explicitly about a few things. One, they hammered pretty hard on the plaintiff bar, vilifying them and accusing them for increased costs - and, in part, they are correct. I will want to see what the bill says, but it looks like the right to sue has been entirely eliminated except in very rare circumstances. That's a very high bar - I've worked in No-Fault jurisdictions as a claims adjuster before, and the bar was certainly quite high, but no right to sue (as it seems here) is extreme. I may be wrong about that, time will tell. The increased benefits is a very good thing in exchange. Weekly indemnity for the time you miss from work, paying your therapy bills - all to be expected under such a system. A limit of 7.5M per accident is actually also very high (to go with the high bar for a lawsuit) and should be able to help even the most seriously injured. What I am interested in seeing - and no one talked about - is cost reduction due to the efficiency of resolving liability. True no-fault systems mean that one adjuster doesn't call another adjuster to hash out who is at fault in a simple rear-ender. There is a chart which outlines liability in these cases, and you get faster service and repairs. I think this will be very interesting as the cost savings are huge. Ready? And this is where the ICBC Bashers will start! GO!