[bootlegga]

Wow, I'm surprised at all the sympathy for a BMW owner (and a leased one at that).

Seriously though, most people who lease luxury cars usually use them as a tax write-off (like real estate agents, sale reps, etc), so I'm sure she'll probably be just fine.

If she is just a regular joe who went out and splurged on a fancy car, then she should have gotten proper insurance for it at the same time. Frankly, it sounds to me like she cheaped out on insurance and is paying for it. Sorry, but that's probably happened to all of us at one time or another (tried to do something on the cheap and gotten burned down the road).

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that anything cheap or free almost never is - it always costs you in the long run.

[QBall]

andyt andyt:

Any insurance company will try to find a way not to pay out - that's just good business. It's what healthcare insurers do in the US, with devastating consequences, and even our government health plan to some degree.

I've never heard of this replacement value insurance - it's never been mentioned to me when buying it. I thought all insurance was for depreciated cost. And why should she have to buy the lease company a new car - they should also have to accept some sort of depreciated value.

Private insurers outside B.C. offer a Waiver of Depreciation (generally) for vehicle purchased new for the first two years assuming you are the original owner. This endorsement waives depreciation when determining the amount of loss when their is a total loss situation (basically giving you what you paid for the vehicle).
Replacement Cost endorsement is a different type of endorsement and I know of no private insurer outside of B.c. that offers this (some private insurers in B.C. offer this to compete with ICBC who does offer this). With Replacement Cost Endorsement in case of a total loss the insurer will attempt to replace the vehicle lost with the same make and model of the current year. If that vehicle is not available the insurer will give their client what they paid for their vehicle plus an additional amount (to account for inflation) or the client can choose a different make/model. Obviously this is more work for the insurer which is why private insurers do not want to offer Replacement Cost, only Waiver of Depreciation. I'm not sure if SGI and MPI offer Replacement Cost.

[BartSimpson]

This is a perfect example of why I support Castle Doctrine. If you shoot rioters who are threatening to burn your property in, say, Texas then good on you. To allow the rioters to destroy property has an absolute impact on people's lives. What happens if this woman can't buy another car because of the outstanding debt and then loses her job and eventually kills herself out of despondency? This is not a straw man because this kind of thing happens. That's why you see states that say you have a right to defend your property because, ultimately, you may well be defending your life.

[raydan]

Pretty much every day, people get into accidents, the insurance considers the car a total loss but doesn't pay out enough to cover the car loan. Why is this one suddenly news worthy? Maybe she's just trying to drum up some sympathy. We could send her money to help pay off the car.

[Brenda]

andyt andyt:

Nope, she just wants to rag on ICBC. I've insured cars in the US, and I'll take our system any time.

EVERYBODY wants to rag on ICBC.

[SprCForr]

I LIKE ragging on ICBC.

[andyt]

SprCForr SprCForr:

I LIKE ragging on ICBC.

We all do. I just keep in mind that the alternative could be worse.

[andyt]

I wonder how the leasing company determines depreciated value differently than ICBC? I mean they can't expect to get back a brand new car. Maybe she drove a lot more km than in provided for by the lease?

[SprCForr]

An alternative could be better too.

Having grown up with ICBC and experiencing the difference here in AB, I'd take my current insurance plan over ICBC all ways to Sunday.

[SprCForr]

andyt andyt:

I wonder how the leasing company determines depreciated value differently than ICBC? I mean they can't expect to get back a brand new car...

I wondered that too.

[Brenda]

SprCForr SprCForr:

An alternative could be better too.

Having grown up with ICBC and experiencing the difference here in AB, I'd take my current insurance plan over ICBC all ways to Sunday.

Oh my, I don't know how it works in AB, but I do know how it works in The Netherlands. I would take the Dutch plan over ICBC at any day.

[andyt]

Presumably she made the claim under comprehensive coverage, and we have all kinds of choice for that optional sort of coverage in BC. I've never gone for it because it's a hassle dealing with two insurers and what the private market offers doesn't seem substantially cheaper or better than Ickybicky.

[QBall]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is a perfect example of why I support Castle Doctrine. If you shoot rioters who are threatening to burn your property in, say, Texas then good on you. To allow the rioters to destroy property has an absolute impact on people's lives. What happens if this woman can't buy another car because of the outstanding debt and then loses her job and eventually kills herself out of despondency? This is not a straw man because this kind of thing happens. That's why you see states that say you have a right to defend your property because, ultimately, you may well be defending your life.

Does the Castle Doctrine apply to a car in a public street being vandalized with no one in it?

[bootlegga]

raydan raydan:

Pretty much every day, people get into accidents, the insurance considers the car a total loss but doesn't pay out enough to cover the car loan. Why is this one suddenly news worthy? Maybe she's just trying to drum up some sympathy. We could send her money to help pay off the car.

+ 1

That's what I tried to say...

[BartSimpson]

QBall QBall:

Does the Castle Doctrine apply to a car in a public street being vandalized with no one in it?

If it's your car being attacked you have a right to defend it and you do not have to retreat in the face of the crowd in a Castle Doctrine jurisdiction. That's part and parcel of Castle Doctrine and a check on Lexis shows only three states specifically prohibiting the defense of property and that's Hawai'i, Massachussetts, and New Jersey.

The thing I like the best about Castle Doctrine isn't the endorsement of lethal force (although that's the fun part ) it's the fact that with Castle Doctrine all of the responsibility for the ramifications of a criminal act fall squarely upon the criminal.

The actions or reactions of a citizen to a crime are irrelevant.

All that matters is that a criminal violated the law and their protections under the law ended at that point.

Which is as it should be.