Lably
Skip to content

Public auto insurance

  • 6 min read
  • 6 chapters

Explore on Lably

ToursExplore Lably’s 3D tours

Public auto insurers in Canada have historically operated on a not-for-profit basis. The exception is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), which had its enabling legislation amended in 2010 to allow the provincial government to compel it to pay dividends into the provincial treasury.

Versus private auto insurance

Arguments over public versus private provision of auto insurance often revolve around price and treatment of claimants. Ultimately, the question of which system is more efficient remains an open one.

The principled arguments for private insurance turn on the 'disciplining' effect of market competition. With regard to price, proponents of private insurance argue that an open and competitive market for auto insurance would force providers to be cost-efficient and to compete on price, therefore resulting in lower premiums. However, those in favour of public insurance provision argue that, since private companies would also have to make profits for their owners, a non-profit entity would be more likely to have low premiums.

With regard to claimants themselves, proponents of private insurance argue that competition will force private insurers to treat claimants as fairly as possible, since insureds will simply change providers if they feel mistreated. The counterargument to this is, given that all private insurers have similar profit pressures, they will all be similarly reluctant to pay benefits in order to increase their profit margins, thus resulting in insureds being poorly served no matter which insurer they choose – whereas a public insurer operating on a long-run break-even basis would have more flexibility to fully compensate claimants.

On an empirical level, cost comparisons across jurisdictions are difficult for several reasons. First, different jurisdictions use different insurance models. British Columbia, for example, uses a tort model with some no-fault accident benefits; Saskatchewan offers consumers a choice between no-fault and tort policies; Manitoba uses a no-fault model with the option to sue for economic damages in excess of no-fault benefits; and Québec uses a pure no-fault model with no option to sue. Second, mandated minimum levels of coverage and benefits can vary widely, even between provinces that use similar insurance models. Third, what is covered within a given category, such as medical benefits, may also differ between jurisdictions. Fourth, different parts of the country differ in areas such as demographics and weather, which may affect the costs of claims as well as accident frequency. Lastly, comparisons with other countries – and the United States in particular – are difficult since Canada's public healthcare system covers medical costs that would otherwise often be borne by auto insurers.

Because of this, it is difficult to conduct accurate comparisons of premiums across the country. An analysis that does not disclose its methodology, or that uses premium data drawn from multiple outside sources, is likely to be unreliable.

As would be expected, these complicating factors have resulted in various comparative studies of premiums across the country reaching different conclusions. For example, studies by the Consumers' Association of Canada found that rates in the four public-provision provinces are lower than in provinces that use a private auto insurance system. On the other hand, the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think-tank, released a survey in 2011 which concluded that the highest auto insurance rates in Canada were paid in Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, of which the latter three operate public insurers. More recently, a 2015 Deloitte analysis conducted for Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) found that the four provinces with public provision have the cheapest insurance rates.

Sign in to keep reading

5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Education