ICBC will introduce a new “unlisted driver protection” fee next year for people who occasionally let friends or family members not listed on their policy drive their vehicle. For $50 a year, vehicle owners can protect themselves should the person they hand their keys over to gets into an accident.
According to the media, unlisted driver protection is meant to apply to people who lend out their vehicle fewer than 12 times a year. If owners do not pay for the additional coverage and an unlisted driver then crashes their car, the owner would be liable to pay for damages. ICBC has said there will be exceptions for situations such as medical emergencies.
The measure was approved by the BC Utilities Commission last week and is part of the massive overhaul of ICBC’s rate structures announced earlier this year.
Until now, s. 63(b) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation has extended insurance coverage under the owner’s certificate to any member of the owner’s household or anyone who drives their vehicle with their consent. So rather than offering something new, ICBC will now charge you for something you already had.]
“Anything that deters someone from making the responsible decision to let a sober friend drive is a bad idea.”
Unlisted Driver Protection fee is a cynical cash grab
On the face of it, $50 to protect yourself from any liability caused by someone borrowing your car doesn’t seem like much. And that’s the point. You would have to be stupid not to pay the extra fee when the alternative is potentially paying tens of thousands of dollars for something that isn’t your fault.
ICBC has reportedly claimed the new measure is aimed at making the system fairer and is a response to the number of crashes caused by people borrowing someone else’s car. But is it fair? The new policy charges everyone the same flat fee. In this way, it effectively punishes drivers who have never made a claim due to lending out their car and those who have in the same way. It’s like all drivers will have to pay a risk premium regardless of whether or not they pose a risk of irresponsibly letting others use their car.
Most drivers will no doubt feel they have little option other than to pay for unlisted driver protection and the government is all too aware of this.
Disincentive for designated drivers
Drivers who don’t buy unlisted driver protection – because they think they won’t need it or because they don’t want to pay extra out of principle – may find themselves in a difficult situation next year. Let’s not forget, s. 63(b) of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation played an important role in getting people back home safely under the old system. If you have a few drinks too many you could rest assured that your insurance would cover your sober friend to drive you home in your car.
Under this new system, owners who have not purchased unlisted driver protection will be reluctant to hand over their keys to a designated driver. Anything that deters someone from making the responsible decision to let a sober friend drive is a bad idea and counterproductive to the government’s stated aim to reduce drunk driving. With the decriminalization of cannabis also in effect next year, this is a step in the wrong direction for getting people home safely.
How will the new policy be policed?
ICBC says the new policy is geared towards people who lend out their vehicle fewer than 12 times a year. This is clearly aimed at preventing friends and family members from exploiting the system. This is understandable but it raises the question: how exactly will this be enforced? Insurance adjusters already carry out investigations into insurance claims and if they suspect someone who is not listed on an insurance policy is using the vehicle regularly as opposed to a few times a year, they will void your claim.
In this case, for example, the registered owner of a van said he gave the keys to one of his employees so he could park company vehicle and drive it to the store from time to time. When the employee, who had never been licenced to drive, got into an accident, ICBC refused to pay the $2,000 damages. It held that since the employee operated the van more than once a week he was, therefore, a “principal operator” and therefore should have been listed on the insurance policy. The judge agreed with this argument, saying because the owner gave his employee a spare set of keys, he gave him “de facto operative control of the vehicle”. The judge also found the owner should have used more prudence than simply assuming his employee had a valid licence. The owner’s appeal against ICBC’s refusal to pay for damages was therefore dismissed.
The point is, ICBC already has a system in place to prevent people from exploiting the system of lending cars to friends and family. Setting a figure of 12 times a year seems arbitrary. This might also discourage owners who have paid for unlisted driver protection from lending their car to a sober buddy if they are unsure whether or not the 12 times a year threshold has already been passed.
Challenging an ICBC refusal
The new unlisted driver protection fee is part of a host of changes to insurance rates that come into effect next year. Make no mistake, some of these changes will make it more difficult to succeed in claims against ICBC but there are always exceptions to the rules.
If you need to dispute a claim with ICBC, we recommend you hire a lawyer to do it on your behalf. At Acumen Law we are experienced at dealing with these sorts of disputes and we know how to make sure the insurer fulfils its obligations to you.
The sooner you speak to a lawyer the better, so if you need help with an ICBC claim, contact us on 604-685-8889.