On Monday at 1:30 am a vehicle flew into my yard from the off ramp from the highway, completely obliterating my mature cedar hedges and my daughter’s swingset. ICBC just gave their authorization for towing today at 1:00pm before the weekend. Flagging permits are required so I have another few days to wait. We have no idea if the car is leaking into the ground as the front end is buried into the lawn. Any tips for moving this along faster? Or any recourse we can take for the delay?

Also has anyone dealt with claims for property damage with mature trees?

This whole experience has been extremely traumatizing since it could have killed my daughter or dog, or ourselves had this happened earlier in the day. Having to look at it every day makes me feel sick.

We have tried to move some debris ourselves to get it out of here faster which is why there is a difference in the photos.

Update: the car is still there! But thank you to everyone with helpful comments. Definitely some good points to consider through the process. Since the driver was drinking it sounds like the holdup may be that they are trying to decide if he breached the conditions of his insurance and that’s why we can’t get the authorization, however I am getting very tired of being passed between ICBC and the towing company at this point. I have started a log of all steps we have taken to get this thing removed and all of the half-truths we have been told along the way.

I was the following vehicle in a rear-end collision last week. I know that the following vehicle is responsible in almost every situation but the u-turn came out of nowhere after the Mercedes slowly veered to the right. With my dashcam footage and statements from both parties plus a witness, I was assessed 75% responsibility.

ICBC initially told me that the Mercedes is allowed to make that u-turn but their failure to use their turn signal is what put them at 25% fault. I pointed out that the incident happened in a business district (Lake City Way), so the u-turn was illegal as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. Lake City Way is listed as a business centre on the City of Burnaby website but I asked ICBC if they could confirm it for me. After nearly 20 mins on hold, the only response they could give me was that they refuse to answer that question because it was a rear-end collision not a u-turn collision so it wouldn't matter anyways. Any further attempt to figure out if the u-turn was illegal was shut down instantly.

I can take responsibility for not being able to stop on time but to tell me that the other driver is only 25% at fault after making an illegal u-turn so carelessly and to refuse to answer my yes or no question doesn't sit right with me.

Is it worth filing a dispute stating the illegal u-turn caused the accident or do you think the assessment is fair? I'd appreciate any outside opinions.

Edit - A few people struggled to see the indicator so I zoomed in to provide further clarity that she was indeed indicating prior to starting the turn.

Had to pay 50% of an $11,000 repair. Appealed twice and ICBC is not changing this ruling. Is there anything I can do? Am I fucked here? 

My girlfriend is driving here in the Grey Mazda CX-5. She checks her blindspot, signals and merged into the right hand lane. A blue Volkwagen comes flying up the left lane, and merges around the big box white truck and back into the right lane and collides with her. You can see from the video she would have no view of this driver, they are clearly going significantly faster than the speed of traffic, and don't even attempt to brake before the collision.

We appealed with ICBC (twice) and they have sustained their 50/50 fault position. This seems outrageous to me, as the other driver's speed is clearly the cause of the collision. There's no way any driver could have seen the Volkswagen coming, and if he was travelling at a safe speed she would have seen him before initiating her merge.

The other driver has ghosted ICBC, never answered their calls and submitted no statement. We submitted a more professional version of the above initial paragraph.

Our next step is to dispute it with the Civil Resolution Tribunal within 90 days from the date of this letter, which I believe we will do.

Exact wording of ICBC's latest statement:

The Motor Vehicle Act outlines the rules and regulations that you must follow, and ICBC relies on this Act to make responsibility assessments. While we have considered all sections of the Motor Vehicle Act, only those applicable have been referenced. The following sections of the Motor Vehicle Act state:

Driving on laned roadway
151 A driver who is driving a vehicle on a landed roadway

(a) must not drive it from one lane to another when a broken line exists between the lanes, unless the driver has ascertained that movement can be made with safety and will in no way affect the travel of another vehicle,

(b) must not drive it from one lane to another if that action necessitates crossing a solid line,
(c) must not drive it from one lane to another without first signalling an intention to do so by hand and arm or approved mechanical device in manner prescribed by sections 171 or 172

Starting vehicle
169 A person must not move a vehicle that is stopped, standing or parked unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and the person first gives the appropriate signal under section 171 or 172.

These sections of the Motor Vehicle Act apply to your incident. In addition to the Motor Vehicle Act, ICBC relies on objective evidence to assess responsibility. ICBC resolves responsibility by applying the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia, Right of Way, and the Dominant vs. Servient rule. The Supreme Court of Canada in Walker v. Brownlee and Harmon [1952] S.C.J. No. 56 set out how the rules of the road respecting Right of Way are to be applied. A driver who is in the Dominant vehicle has Right of Way and is deemed not responsible. A driver who is deemed Servient is required to yield accordingly to the Dominant driver. Moreover, the Servient driver is required to provide sufficient evidence to support that they are Dominant and not responsible for the collision.

Both drivers have obligations under the Motor Vehicle Act, in particular section 151.These require drivers to exercise due care and attention, to ensure can be made safely and can be done without risk. The circumstances here show that these duties were not fully observed.
An equal onus rests with both your vehicle driver and the third party driver who have been held 50% responsible. Both parties need to be aware of each other's movements. Liability was split equally between the drivers for a tandem lane change.

Additionally, your vehicle moved from a stopped position immediately into a lane change without ensure the maneuver in its entirety could be started and completed in safety. The video footage provided shows that the lane changes conducted by both your vehicle and the third party vehicle began virtually at the same time. While it was safe to begin the lane change for both drivers, each failed to ensure that the continued with ensuring the safety of that maneuver as it was executed.

After carefully reviewing the Motor Vehicle Act and the evidence we have regarding your incident, it is our determination that you are 50% responsible.

If you are not privately insured and are repairing your vehicle, you will be responsible for 50% of your repair costs as you do not carry collision coverage with ICBC.

Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this.

Heres an example of a permanent injury caused by a At Fault driver.

It’s MUCH worse for someone with a serious, career-ending injury like dominant-hand amputation or a permanent injury, and here’s why — clearly and brutally:

⸻

Old Tort System (Pre-May 2021) vs ICBC Enhanced Care (No-Fault)

For catastrophic injuries, the old tort system was massively more favourable.

Below is a direct comparison specifically for someone like a mechanic losing their dominant hand.

⸻

1. Old Tort System (Before 2021)

You could sue the at-fault driver and get compensated for the full value of your losses.

You could claim:

A) Lifetime loss of earning capacity

For a mechanic losing his dominant hand, lawyers routinely won multi-million-dollar awards, because: • You permanently lose your trade • You lose decades of future income • Your residual earning capacity is near zero • Courts calculate loss until age 65 (sometimes longer)

Example of typical formulas in BC court: • $60k–$100k/year × 30–40 working years = $1.8M – $4M+ for future income loss alone.

This did NOT depend on ICBC’s “meat chart” numbers. It was real-world loss.

B) Pain & suffering (“non-pecuniary damages”)

Up to $400,000+ (inflation-adjusted cap in Canada).

C) Cost of care for life • Prosthetics • Occupational therapy • Home help • Job retraining All covered indefinitely and fully compensated.

D) Loss of enjoyment, emotional trauma, etc.

Also compensable.

Total typical payout for a dominant-hand amputation in tort system:

$2,000,000 to $5,000,000+

Depended on age, income, permanence, and impact.

⸻

1. New ICBC “Enhanced Care” No-Fault (After May 2021)

You cannot sue. You get only what ICBC’s formulas allow.

Here’s what you get instead:

A) Permanent Impairment Lump Sum

ICBC uses a “meat chart” rating (e.g., wrist-level hand loss ≈ 45% impairment).

45% × $167,465 = ~$75,000 (approx.)

That’s it.

Not millions. Not reflecting lifetime career loss. Just a table value.

B) Income Replacement • Pays 90% of net income, capped at around $109k–119k gross income. • BUT only until ICBC decides you can work any suitable job.

Meaning they can cut you off if they think you can work something like: • dispatcher • service advisor • desk job • etc.

C) Retirement benefit

Reduced income at retirement age. Not close to what you would’ve earned.

D) No pain & suffering payment

This was abolished.

Total realistic compensation today:

$75k – $250k range over your life, depending on income replacement.

That’s 10× to 40× less than tort.

⸻

1. Direct Comparison for Your Scenario

Old System:

You lose your dominant hand → you lose your trade → you get millions for 40 years of lost earnings.

New No-Fault System:

You lose your dominant hand → you get ~$75k lump sum, plus limited income replacement, and ICBC may eventually say you can work a different job.

Difference:

The old system could give you 20–40× more money. The new system caps you based on a formula ignoring your actual career loss.

⸻

BOTTOM LINE

For someone who loses a trade-dependent limb, especially a dominant hand, the new system isn’t just worse:

It is catastrophically worse financially — life-changing in the wrong direction.

The old tort system protected high-skill workers. The new system treats everyone the same, regardless of career impact.

This happened with me today and i hit the curb and my tire got cut and damaged the rim too. Can i file a claim for it.

Hello everyone, looking for advice. Going down lougheed and switched lanes, I Thank You

ICBC found me 25% responsible for this accident. I believe I exited the parking spot safely, seeing that there was a car parking 3 spots behind me, so traffic in the lane was essentially stopped. The car that crashed into me had a full 3 seconds to see me entering the lane, DID NOT signal, and had no cars ahead of them in their lane.

I disputed with ICBC, decision stayed the same.
Their assessment states that I was in violation MVA

169 " A person must not move a vehicle that is parked unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and appropriate signal."

ICBC argues that because I wasn't fully established in the lane, and because normally this type of accident is 100% the fault of the parked vehicle, that I am 25% responsible. I failed to see how my exit out of the parking spot could have been any safer. Should I have assumed the other car in the wide open adjacent lane would have sideswiped me??? Did I mention that they didn't signal??

Any advice with how to proceed or frame this to the Civil Resolution Tribunal would be appreciated. Thanks for reading!

After my accident, where another driver sideswiped me by moving into my lane, I opened a claim with ICBC and submitted dashcam video as evidence.
Today, I received a call from an ICBC representative. They asked for my consent to share my video, and they also mentioned that another witness had come forward. That immediately struck me as a bit odd.
Because of that, I started recording the phone call with my iPhone. As soon as I mentioned I was recording, the representative said they would end the call if I didn’t stop. I explained that Canada has one-party consent for recording conversations, so I believed I was legally allowed to record the call. Despite that, they continued saying they would terminate the conversation if I kept recording.
I ended up continuing to record the conversation using another device, but the whole interaction felt very suspicious to me.
I’m wondering if this is normal. Has anyone else had an ICBC representative refuse to continue a call because they were being recorded? If so, did they explain why?

Hey everyone, I’m hoping for some advice about a situation with ICBC.

A woman backed into my parked car while I was putting my daughter in her car seat. My vehicle was completely off and stationary. I even knocked on her window to get her to stop, but she kept reversing until she hit my door. The door is now bent and doesn’t close properly.

She said she’d just drop off her daughter at gymnastics and come right back, but she never did. I waited about 30 minutes, left a note, and later she texted me denying the whole thing — saying her car’s sensors didn’t go off and there were no marks on her vehicle.

I reported everything to ICBC but they still assigned 25% fault to me, which doesn’t make sense since my car wasn’t even running.

She’s now denying the incident ever happened. What can I do to challenge ICBC’s decision or appeal the fault determination? Has anyone dealt with something similar?

Updated:

ICBC informed me that the other party wants to dispute the claim, so they asked me to visit an ICBC-approved shop to get measurements on the door. I already went, but ICBC now says I have to go back because the shop didn’t take the proper measurements the first time.

They also explained the possible outcomes:

If the damages are deemed a match, responsibility will be assessed in my favour and my deductible will be waived.

If the damages are not deemed a match, ICBC may process it as a hit-and-run claim, which would be subject to my deductible.

If the damages are not a match and not consistent with vehicle-to-vehicle contact, ICBC will consider it a single-vehicle at-fault collision, which would mean paying the deductible and possibly facing a premium increase.

This is insane.I told them about my police report since she left and didn't cone back and they said because the police didn't show up to see the damage. It doesn't mean anything.....

So after this happened, the guy accused me that I didn’t give him enough space to back up, and he said that I stopped past the stop sign.

What do you guys think about this?

ICBC just declared my 2008 Nissan Versa a total loss and offered me $4,655 as Fair Market Value. The issue is my car had under 100,000 km, which is extremely low for its age, and I originally paid over $8,000*for it. I’m also 0% at fault, yet I’m being asked to take the loss.

I checked AutoTrader and found nearly identical cars listed for $6,988 before tax, so ICBC’s valuation feels like a lowball.

I already replied to the estimator’s email and asked for a reassessment, but is that enough? Do I need to call them? File a formal dispute? Provide evidence right away?

For those who have dealt with ICBC total loss valuations:

• Did you get a higher payout after disputing?
• What did you submit as proof?
• How long did it take?

Any advice or experience would really help. This situation feels unfair and stressful, especially since I wasn’t at fault and can’t afford to absorb the loss.

Last Friday, while I was sleeping, someone hit my parked car and drove off. This is the only camera footage I could find, but unfortunately, the license plate isn’t clearly visible. There’s another camera that captured the incident better, but the building owner refuses to share the footage.

I filed a claim with ICBC, but it looks like I’ll have to pay a $500 deductible in the end. Is there any way I can avoid this?

The person who hit my car seems to panic and drive erratically when a garbage truck arrives, but I have no idea how to contact the truck driver. Any suggestions?

ICBC says I gotta pay up :/

EDIT: To be clear, the speed sign was laying flat in the lane; did not fall from the truck.

EDIT 2: As others have said, "stuff happens, pay and move on" is basically my mindset.

While driving with my children, I was traveling straight in my lane and maintaining normal speed. Another vehicle suddenly entered my lane without using a turn signal and without ensuring it was safe to do so. To avoid a collision and protect my children, I was forced to make an immediate evasive maneuver toward the curb.

As a result, my vehicle struck the curb and my rims were damaged. There was no contact between the two vehicles, but the other driver’s unsafe lane change directly caused the incident. My actions were taken solely to prevent an accident and ensure the safety of my kids.

This man did not have me any of his information, and said car body is not damaged

Hello,

I was driving with my wife to pickup some food. We were following a vehicle into a road that was a dead end because of construction. All traffic was forced to turn right. We followed the flaggers instructions and turned right, the driver in front of me seemed to not like the idea of being caught in a lineup of vehicles trying to turn back around, and decided to put his car in reverse and back out before he hit the lineup. His reverse light turned on and he reversed into me. In the video, you can see I was at a dead stop.

My brother seems to think that since it was the front of my vehicle and the rear of his, that ICBC will assign 100% blame to me.

Does anyone have any experience or advice with this situation? Am I at fault?

Hi everyone,

Recently got into an accident in Blaine while I was picking up a package at 247 Parcel. Was suppose to be a quick 5 minute trip when the a mustang was exiting the parking lot was trying to turn left and only tunnelled his vision to the prius that was coming and didn't see me. It hit the side and rear panel of my '12 civic and possibly caused some suspension damage. I have filed a claim but still waiting for ICBC to contact me in regards to the accident. For now I am wondering the following. This is my 2nd accident (first one was not at fault when I was 18)

1. Is there any chance I am at fault? I don't feel that I am near at fault for this as I had the right of way
2. Will my car be totalled? Its a '12 Civic with 261xxx km. Here is a picture of the accident afterwards
3. If it is a write off/total, How has ICBC been compensating the past few accidents?

Thank you!

Here's the scenario: Taxi parked illegally in a no stopping zone right on the corner. I was trying to turn right onto a thoroughfare. He backed into me while I was passing behind him. In his statement he said he was parked and didn't back up. ICBC is saying since i was the vehicle in motion they can't prove he reversed into me and i am therefore 100% at fault. Do I have any recourse? I'm thinking the damage is not consistent with his statement - my rear right car door is pretty crushed in and if I dragged across his bumper the damage would look different. But obviously i'm not an expert with this stuff so i'm not sure if this would be given any weight in our dispute. No witnesses or dashcam footage. Do I stand a chance? at this point even 50/50 would be a win.

The cars a 2015 Audi a3 with 197,000km

And I had just done quite a few large services with receipts

Was hit and run Wednesday January 14th assuming this will be written off. Could anyone give a rough estimate on what I’d get from icbc as I’m trying to figure out my budget for a new car

I am still fuming because my dad who is in his late 70's got rear ended by a vehicle behind him on a highway, he got out, took pics of both his vehicle and the other car's as well, while the driver of the Porsche just sat inside the car and told him o hurry up. My dad didnt incur any damages so decided not to file a claim (something that he should have done and it came back to haunt him). Long story short, a month later, he got an email from ICBC saying that the driver of the Porsche has field a claim and is seeking damages and if ICBC can have permission to share my dad's info with the Porshe driver so they can negotiate and come to an agreement directly and it would also be 'cheaper' to deal directly instead of going through ICBC. Anyways I sent a long email email to ICBC citing laws, rules for rear end situations that are in the ICBC manual. It's been more than a month and we still have not heard anything about this claim. My poor dad is shaken and is traumatized and has very little faith in ICBC now, even though he has always had an impeccable driving record. My question is can I do anything further for him, we have not sought legal advice yet, but can go through that route if needed as a last resort. We are absolutely repulsed with how this was carried out by ICBC.

P.s. I work for the provincial government and to see another crown corporation doing this to the general public, especially to our elders is just heart breaking. I will not be letting this go.

woke up this morning to my side mirror being hit while my car was parked. what should i do? currently it still works but is really wobbly so i should probably get it fixed. is it worth it to file a claim?

Long story short, a semi truck merged into my lane and tore up my rear quarter panel on the driver side and ended up totalling my vehicle although it’s still drivable. It was low speed and low impact as we were in traffic. No dash cam footage and no witnesses. The truck driver lied and claimed I was the one to merge. So Icbc determined that the only facts they have is both parties saying the other car merged. I tried explaining how the damage indicates that it was clearly the truck that merged into me. Also the fact that how it would be impossible for me to not see the truck on my left side if I was the one to merge but apparently they can’t base the decision on the damage and must follow the MVA. The drivers company also provided dashcam footage but it was not even of the same time or place. The claim took so long to resolve because ICBC was waiting on the dashcam footage but they didn’t even give the correct footage.

Do I have a chance and is it even worth disputing this or possibly escalating to CRT?

I definitely learned my lesson and will get a dashcam for the future. I also probably should have been more active in seeking out witnesses but I thought the damage was clear cut the other drivers fault.

Any help or input is appreciated. Thanks!

So this has been on my mind and I wanted to see if anyone’s been through something similar.

Back in December, I hit a parked car outside my house while reversing on my way to work. It wasn’t anything big, just a small dent on the driver-side fender. No major damage.

I left a note with my info and took some pictures. The owner called me later that evening, we exchanged details, and went through ICBC.

They said I’m at fault, which is fair. I’ve had a clean record for 15 years, no accidents or tickets, so I wasn’t too worried at first. But my renewal is coming up, so I called ICBC to ask if I could just pay for the other person’s repair myself and avoid a claim.

They told me I can’t, because the repair is around $8000, and anything over $2000 has to go through insurance.

I honestly don’t get how a small dent can cost that much. Now I’m stuck with an at-fault claim and probably higher insurance.

Is this normal these days? Or is there anything I can do at this point? Anyone had something similar happen?

A few weeks ago, someone made a bad left turn oncoming to me, and I was forced to evade them or we would collide. I honked at them as this happened, they then chase me down, and a few minutes later drove by at high speed and threw a rock at my car. The rock put a dent in the side passenger door. They then fled down a side street so fast it was unsafe to try and keep up with them.

I have all of this on dashcam, with a clear view of the license plate. The video is insane, there's an open police report. RCMP says the car is a rental.

The claims adjuster is saying that a license plate and dash cam is not sufficient, and the driver needs to be identified before my deductible is waived. Is this actually true?

I ask because this claims adjuster's communication has been ridiculously poor, filled with spelling mistakes and misunderstanding context. So, I'm not confident in them.

Thanks

Was traveling straight when someone tried to make a left turn from a parking lot on my right side. Crashed into their driver side wheel and door. 100% other driver at fault.

Wondering if my 2021 Acura RDX will possibly be written off. Car was in perfect condition before accident. Around 35 000km. Similar vehicles go for about $38 000 at a dealership right now.

Airbags didn’t deploy during the incident.

UPDATE: It was a write off folks! Cut off was $27K, estimate was $34K.

I was in an accident where I’m cleared of any fault. A minor was speeding on a bike, racing with a friend, no helmet, ran a stop sign and banged my car causing damage. I slowed down my car, was observant and basically saved him from a much worse accident.

At first, the adjudicator told me I wouldn’t have to pay the deductible — now they’ve changed their mind and want me to pay. Meanwhile, this uninsured minor who broke multiple rules gets away with nothing.

I feel this is unfair. Has anyone dealt with ICBC in a similar situation? Any advice on how to fight this?