Widow forced to pay dead husband's car insurance

Might want to remember that one.


Still, another big mess from our favorite insurance company.

Running to the media was the only way to solve this.

ICBC is a sick joke.

At least it isn't fucktarded expensive.

God I hate insurance companies.

Maybe, but it's not as sick a joke as the majority of private insurers. Guardian Insurance being the sickest joke of them all.

Here we go. Queue the "government sucks because of one incident, let's trust private insurance" posts...

ICBC already backed down when they were called to explain on TV.

It's been a while since I was an Autoplan broker, but if I remember correctly in order to perform transactions on behalf of the estate you need to prove you are the executor/administrator of the estate. In order to do this you need to provide the will to show that you are named as executor of the estate (and the certificate of death). If there is no will, and this is the part I'm a little fuzzy on, then you need to provide different documentation depending on the value of the estate. I believe if the estate is valued over $25,000 then you need to a Letter of Administration from probate to show that you have been designated as the administrator of the estate. If it's less than I believe it's just a sworn, signed statement and a copy of the death certificate (hence the paragraph in the article that talked about having to prove the value of the estate). These rules apply to everyone in B.C. and exist to ensure someone doesn't try and transfer vehicles before the estate is settled or cancel insurance before it's proper and risk the financial security of the estate (ICBC has a mandated duty to do this). The value of the estate would have had to have been verified by probate regardless of whether there is a will or not, so I don't see what this woman's problem is in providing this information to ICBC (unless she's pulling something like hiding assets). It's rather disappointing ICBC is bowing to media pressure. Also ICBC is not making the widow pay for the insurance (debts aren't inheritable), it's making the estate pay for it so the article is misleading.

What is it to the ICBC what the value of the estate was, or is? The car is not in their possession anymore, she returned the plates, probably included the death certificate and proof of her being his wife. That should be enough.
Not everyone has a will, and when you are married, you shouldn't need one. Your marriage certificate should do.

Again, what is it to the ICBC what the value of the estate is?

Not in this country.

Division of assets is not automatic here, as in Europe.

That's a bit misleading in itself.

With a married couple, its obvious the estate and the wife are basically
the same thing.

That's a bit misleading in itself.

With a married couple, its obvious the estate and the wife are basically
the same thing.
But you just tell me that is not automatically the same thing...

It isn't.

When someone dies, they keep living according to the various institutions and
government agencies, until all the paperwork gets cleaned up.

Since the car was in his name, the wife isn't allowed to drive, transfer ownership,
or sell the car until AFTER probate has been done.
If an asset has a named beneficiary, then it shouldnt go to probate..
i.e. an RRSP or tax free savings account.



The death certificate should have been enough to cancel the insurance,
ICBC just being dickheads again.

From what I remember the more valuable the estate the greater the chance of fraud. The politicians decided an estate under $25,000 should be dispersed quickly and wouldn't have much sought after assets. Would you be rather inherit someone's $70,000 Benz or someone's $1,000 Hyundai Pony?



Nope. Only the executor/administrator has the authority.



Anyone who is married and doesn't have a will is a fool, especially if you have assets. Any family member (siblings, parents, grandparents, ex-spouses, ex-lovers) can make a claim on your estate and can tie up the estate in probate for years.

Not it's not. That statement has no basis in fact, law or reality. Debts of an estate are not inheritable. Period. The assets of the estate are used to settle any creditors' claims. If the value of the assets are not sufficient then the courts split up the estate amongst the creditors (who then have to eat the unpaid portion of the debt) and the heirs get nothing, but the heirs are not obligated to pay the debts assuming they weren't part of the original contract. If the executor/administrator transfers/sells any of the assets and then forwards the money to an heir before the creditors' claims are settled the executor/administrator can be personally sued.

Nope. The insurance automatically covers the Estate of a person when they die, and as I said only the executor/administrator can cancel the insurance at that point (and if they have half a brain they should do so only after the estate is settled and the vehicle is sold/transferred). ICBC is following the law, so if you don't like it then write to your MLA and ask them to change the law.