ICBC, a big bully?

My uncle recently told me about how he took someone to court over a car accident. A few years ago, when my uncle was hit by another car, the other driver admitted that he was at fault but later gave a false statement of events to ICBC. In response to the conflicting stories, ICBC declared they were both at fault and would have to individually pay for their own damages.

On Bronson Jones & Company LLP’s website, it explains ICBC adjusters’ main purpose which is “assigning blame and minimizing claims costs.” In my uncle’s case, ICBC refused to re-examine both cars for better evidence in order to assign fault to someone as it would save them money for having to assess the cars and to pay for the damages of the innocent party. In addition, ICBC provided a lawyer for the accused but did not provide one for my uncle. This example questions ICBC’s ethics. Since ICBC represents both parties in an accident, they are always in a conflict of interest however they must use their discretion to handle the dilemma. Though there is not a clear solution, ICBC should act in fairness instead focusing on cost-minizming goals.