ICBC is getting mean and cheap nowadays... You could try, without witness they may blame the damage is caused by you...
That's why, getting an witness is almost "the most important" after an accident has occurred...作者: fibbi 時間: 2012-8-14 10:22
The main reason is - ICBC insurance adjusters are commission based these days, the more they can save for ICBC, the higher their commissions are...
For your own good, it's highly recommended for all drivers to leave a longer stopping distance to your front car... In an accident, if 5 cars were hit in a row, without an witness ALL the 4 cars at the back are ALL FAULTY even those 3 toasted car are completely stop!作者: fibbi 時間: 2012-8-14 10:28
The OP has reported to police I think in that case ICBC would take it ...作者: B2L2 時間: 2012-8-14 10:52
"Hit and run" need a witness??? It shouldn't be called as hit-and-run then. LOL
For accident with multiple cars in a chain, the first question they will ask (for cars in the front) is whether you feel a single hit or multiple hit. You could probably guess out why they ask this question? It isn't always true that all 4 cars at the back is at fault. It really is case by case. Of course, it is still good to leave enough room between cars around you.作者: lo_pak 時間: 2012-8-14 11:00
Your info used to be true in the old days but not recently...
In your example how can you feel a single hit if your car is being toasted?
"Assigning faulty among all parties" has become a trend internally by ICBC if evidents are not self proved... Any idea why ICBC gets less in claims within the last few years?作者: B2L2 時間: 2012-8-14 12:26
I had a highway accident 1.5 months ago involves 3 cars in total. How more recent you mean?
For the one being the front car, you got hit 2 hits/push, the 2nd car behind you hit your first and then followed by the 3rd car. So the 2nd car is in fault or at least partially in fault. If you got one push, it means the 3rd car pushed the 2nd car during the accident, and 2nd car in this case isn't in fault.
In my accident, no witness involved. 3rd car paid for all others.
I totally agree that ICBC does the trick to blame all parties, and it is always like that. When case in doubt, ICBC they simply do 50-50% trick. Both parties get increase in their premium in 50-50 case and ICBC gains the most out of it.作者: lo_pak 時間: 2012-8-14 12:46
If it's only a 3-car accident, it could be the case because evident is quite "self-explanatory"...
My friend got in a 5-car accident couple months back, it's what the lawyer said to him...
I've got a back hit about an year ago and it's a 4-car accident. Being the front car driver I got no issue. The 3 pickups behind me get differential shares of liability.作者: B2L2 時間: 2012-8-14 13:09
That's exactly what I like to point out that it is still case-by-case. Being a middle car doesn't go into fault by default. The best is not to get into any accident. ICBC is very tricky to deal with.
Back to OP's case, I think you definitely should talk to ICBC and see whether the comprehensive insurance cover your car under vandalization.
