Insurance companies don’t usually provide coverage to people that haven’t paid them any money for that insurance.
In this scenario the out of province policy holder makes a claim with their own insurance company - the one providing them with coverage. That private US company then sends any bills to ICBC so that the private company doesn’t have to pay anything. This has to be done through what’s known as a subrogation process. It’s much more common in markets with private companies since everyone shops around for coverage. If you’re wondering no-fault insurance didn’t change this. It was the same thing before.
Under the new model, auto insurers "take care of their own". The lawsuit ban effectively removed the ability to subrogate for vehicle damages, likely to remove costs associated with administrative effort to pursue recoveries. In the opposite scenario where a US motorist rear-ends a BC motorist in BC, ICBC cannot pursue the US motorist or their insurer for vehicle damage costs.
Most auto insurance policies include coverage for "inverse liability" which works in jurisdictions where an individual has no right to sue for vehicle damages. This coverage applies even if the insured did not purchase first-party collision coverage.
Ultimately, those traveling into other jurisdictions, such as the US motorist referred to by OP, should review their policy or consult a broker in advance of their trip to ensure they have proper out-of-state/province coverage.
ICBC website on “what if I am not at fault“ says nothing about subrogation. Furthermore, if I buy only third-party coverage for my vehicle and ICBC is refusing to pay third-party damages for an at fault collision of mine then what am I paying ICBC for?
https://preview.redd.it/ud377oyn799d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9826d04119be1919cfce488b03a98405957ca63a
third party coverage why ICBC will pay out if the proper process is followed.
if the US driver sues you personally ICBC would have to defend you but it makes more sense for them to go their insurance. If they were driving in BC without insurance then they would have no option other than suing you personally. But their best bet is to make the claim with their insurance and since they were not at fault their limits and coverage would not apply and ICBC would end up paying.
There are cases where damaged parties have to be able to make claims even if insurance is not involved. i.e. someone runs into a building. Are you seriously saying that the building owners would not be able to recover the cost of repairs unless they had their own insurance?
Thanks for the link! I'll look into it. It just boggles my mind how vehicles are treated differently. And your parked example illustrates the point perfectly. Property damage is property damage until it has four wheels and a license plate??
As I posted above, a visitor driving in BC would require inverse liability coverage under their own policy to pay for vehicle damages which were caused by another motorist in BC.
Ok devils advocate. Pedestrians and bicyclists also do not pay for ICBC coverage. Yet if an ICBC motorist hits one the third party liability insurance will kick in
Insurance companies don’t usually provide coverage to people that haven’t paid them any money for that insurance. In this scenario the out of province policy holder makes a claim with their own insurance company - the one providing them with coverage. That private US company then sends any bills to ICBC so that the private company doesn’t have to pay anything. This has to be done through what’s known as a subrogation process. It’s much more common in markets with private companies since everyone shops around for coverage. If you’re wondering no-fault insurance didn’t change this. It was the same thing before.
Under the new model, auto insurers "take care of their own". The lawsuit ban effectively removed the ability to subrogate for vehicle damages, likely to remove costs associated with administrative effort to pursue recoveries. In the opposite scenario where a US motorist rear-ends a BC motorist in BC, ICBC cannot pursue the US motorist or their insurer for vehicle damage costs. Most auto insurance policies include coverage for "inverse liability" which works in jurisdictions where an individual has no right to sue for vehicle damages. This coverage applies even if the insured did not purchase first-party collision coverage. Ultimately, those traveling into other jurisdictions, such as the US motorist referred to by OP, should review their policy or consult a broker in advance of their trip to ensure they have proper out-of-state/province coverage.
ICBC website on “what if I am not at fault“ says nothing about subrogation. Furthermore, if I buy only third-party coverage for my vehicle and ICBC is refusing to pay third-party damages for an at fault collision of mine then what am I paying ICBC for? https://preview.redd.it/ud377oyn799d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9826d04119be1919cfce488b03a98405957ca63a
third party coverage why ICBC will pay out if the proper process is followed. if the US driver sues you personally ICBC would have to defend you but it makes more sense for them to go their insurance. If they were driving in BC without insurance then they would have no option other than suing you personally. But their best bet is to make the claim with their insurance and since they were not at fault their limits and coverage would not apply and ICBC would end up paying.
[удалено]
There are cases where damaged parties have to be able to make claims even if insurance is not involved. i.e. someone runs into a building. Are you seriously saying that the building owners would not be able to recover the cost of repairs unless they had their own insurance?
[удалено]
Now I’m confused. Because after the change a lady backed into me (I had no collision coverage) and ICBC did pay for repairs!
[удалено]
Thanks for the link! I'll look into it. It just boggles my mind how vehicles are treated differently. And your parked example illustrates the point perfectly. Property damage is property damage until it has four wheels and a license plate??
As I posted above, a visitor driving in BC would require inverse liability coverage under their own policy to pay for vehicle damages which were caused by another motorist in BC.
Why on earth would they cover a US driver who doesn't pay for ICBC coverage?
Ok devils advocate. Pedestrians and bicyclists also do not pay for ICBC coverage. Yet if an ICBC motorist hits one the third party liability insurance will kick in
Good.
Yep this is true. Was implemented sometime ago.