I grew up in a small resource town in British Columbia and my father was the owner of a small business. Among many services that he offered was the sale of vehicle insurance. That is, until 1973. In that year the government of British Columbia determined that assigning blame in auto accidents was impossible and so insurance was to be “no-fault.” And because both sides of the accident were, therefore, at fault the government would provide all vehicle insurance through that paragon of efficiency, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia a.k.a. ICBC. It can be argued that my father’s negative reaction to no-fault insurance reflected the business income that he lost because of this decision. (There have been changes to the ICBC no-fault insurance most notably to change accident claim awards in 2021.)What cannot be argued is that his predictions of increased premiums and poor-quality service were spot on.When my eldest daughter had been driving for two years she was involved in a near miss “collision”. This means that there was a bumper kiss, the drivers got out to confirm that nothing was damaged, and both drove away. A week later my insurance company called to inform me that my daughter smashed into another car causing $600 in damages and they would pay the claim. I asked to see pictures of the damage, given that despite it being only a week since the accident, the car had been repaired. No pictures were taken but the body shop confirmed the damage and repair costs. I said that under the circumstances, it was my belief that we were being defrauded and I wanted to fight the claim. “Impossible,” I was told. Insurance companies had made an agreement that in such accidents the damage costs would be shared equally. I informed the agent that I was not contesting the cost sharing of the damage but the fact of an accident. Why would I pay for the repair of a car that, according to the police report, was undamaged? The agent got testy, and I accused my insurance company of being involved in the fraud. Not exactly no-fault insurance but certainly a step in that direction.The Alberta government is now floating the idea that there can be no better way to reduce auto insurance costs than to make the system no-fault. Outcomes will be predetermined, expensive lawsuits will be avoided, and claims will be cleaned up lickety-split. Forgive me for the flashbacks to 1973. Cui bono? Who gains with no-fault insurance? The insurance companies and bad drivers, that’s who. Who raises responsible kids by ignoring bad behaviour and assigning equal blame in each sibling spat? But such an approach will make for more responsible drivers?Expensive lawsuits will undoubtedly be avoided but claims settlements will continue to languish and good luck getting a fair resolution if your accident falls outside the boundaries of the predetermined outcomes. “You are stuck in a wheelchair with a $25,000 insurance payout because of the unusual characteristics of your claim. Wow, that sucks.”Should some people pay more for insurance because of their poor driving habits and bad accident record? Supporters of no-fault insurance will say, “Yes of course. Nothing will change in this respect.” But on what basis do premiums go up for these people when no one is at fault? Does this open another legal can of worms?And this, it seems to me, gets to the nub of the issue. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the loudest critics of no-fault insurance are members of the legal community. Insurance companies are unhappy with the current system because the justice system is slow and expensive. On that, I agree with them. In fact, I believe for people with my assets and income, there is no justice system. Hiring a lawyer at $400 an hour is expensive, but it pales in comparison to the cost of starting a court action. And starting a court action at my age is a dicey proposition because I could easily be dead before the courts will hear the case.Some years ago, with two colleagues, I investigated an employment court action claiming $2 million. The eight lawyers we contacted said that our case was very strong, but it would be 10 years before the case would be heard and most of the $2 million would go to costs.No-fault insurance is a band aid to cover the real problem which, in my view, is a justice system that is too expensive and too slow. In a legal system operated by lawyers do I look for changes to allow for speedy and affordable justice any time soon? The question is rhetorical. Will I support no-fault insurance as a stop gap? No, I won’t. The claim that no-fault insurance will reduce premiums is ephemeral. Have dental costs gone down because of a fee schedule? But a fee schedule for auto insurance companies is going to save me money on my premiums? I doubt it. Say no to no-fault insurance.Murray Lytle P.Eng is a former Commissioner of the National Energy Board.
I grew up in a small resource town in British Columbia and my father was the owner of a small business. Among many services that he offered was the sale of vehicle insurance. That is, until 1973. In that year the government of British Columbia determined that assigning blame in auto accidents was impossible and so insurance was to be “no-fault.” And because both sides of the accident were, therefore, at fault the government would provide all vehicle insurance through that paragon of efficiency, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia a.k.a. ICBC. It can be argued that my father’s negative reaction to no-fault insurance reflected the business income that he lost because of this decision. (There have been changes to the ICBC no-fault insurance most notably to change accident claim awards in 2021.)What cannot be argued is that his predictions of increased premiums and poor-quality service were spot on.When my eldest daughter had been driving for two years she was involved in a near miss “collision”. This means that there was a bumper kiss, the drivers got out to confirm that nothing was damaged, and both drove away. A week later my insurance company called to inform me that my daughter smashed into another car causing $600 in damages and they would pay the claim. I asked to see pictures of the damage, given that despite it being only a week since the accident, the car had been repaired. No pictures were taken but the body shop confirmed the damage and repair costs. I said that under the circumstances, it was my belief that we were being defrauded and I wanted to fight the claim. “Impossible,” I was told. Insurance companies had made an agreement that in such accidents the damage costs would be shared equally. I informed the agent that I was not contesting the cost sharing of the damage but the fact of an accident. Why would I pay for the repair of a car that, according to the police report, was undamaged? The agent got testy, and I accused my insurance company of being involved in the fraud. Not exactly no-fault insurance but certainly a step in that direction.The Alberta government is now floating the idea that there can be no better way to reduce auto insurance costs than to make the system no-fault. Outcomes will be predetermined, expensive lawsuits will be avoided, and claims will be cleaned up lickety-split. Forgive me for the flashbacks to 1973. Cui bono? Who gains with no-fault insurance? The insurance companies and bad drivers, that’s who. Who raises responsible kids by ignoring bad behaviour and assigning equal blame in each sibling spat? But such an approach will make for more responsible drivers?Expensive lawsuits will undoubtedly be avoided but claims settlements will continue to languish and good luck getting a fair resolution if your accident falls outside the boundaries of the predetermined outcomes. “You are stuck in a wheelchair with a $25,000 insurance payout because of the unusual characteristics of your claim. Wow, that sucks.”Should some people pay more for insurance because of their poor driving habits and bad accident record? Supporters of no-fault insurance will say, “Yes of course. Nothing will change in this respect.” But on what basis do premiums go up for these people when no one is at fault? Does this open another legal can of worms?And this, it seems to me, gets to the nub of the issue. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the loudest critics of no-fault insurance are members of the legal community. Insurance companies are unhappy with the current system because the justice system is slow and expensive. On that, I agree with them. In fact, I believe for people with my assets and income, there is no justice system. Hiring a lawyer at $400 an hour is expensive, but it pales in comparison to the cost of starting a court action. And starting a court action at my age is a dicey proposition because I could easily be dead before the courts will hear the case.Some years ago, with two colleagues, I investigated an employment court action claiming $2 million. The eight lawyers we contacted said that our case was very strong, but it would be 10 years before the case would be heard and most of the $2 million would go to costs.No-fault insurance is a band aid to cover the real problem which, in my view, is a justice system that is too expensive and too slow. In a legal system operated by lawyers do I look for changes to allow for speedy and affordable justice any time soon? The question is rhetorical. Will I support no-fault insurance as a stop gap? No, I won’t. The claim that no-fault insurance will reduce premiums is ephemeral. Have dental costs gone down because of a fee schedule? But a fee schedule for auto insurance companies is going to save me money on my premiums? I doubt it. Say no to no-fault insurance.Murray Lytle P.Eng is a former Commissioner of the National Energy Board.
