No-fault auto insurance is sold as the simple answer: fewer lawsuits, faster benefits, lower premiums. But what happens when the crash is not a fender bender, and someone’s life is permanently changed? We walk through why BC’s ICBC no-fault model has erupted into a provincial election fight, and why the promise of “enhanced care” can feel very different depending on whether you have a minor injury or a catastrophic one.

We’re joined by Michael Mulligan, a criminal defence lawyer in Victoria, to unpack the real-world trade-offs between a tort system and no-fault insurance. We talk about fairness for seriously injured people, the problem of predicting future earning potential, and why “you’ll get taken care of” is not the same thing as having an independent court able to review decisions. We also push back on popular claims about limits, legal fees, and what compensation looks like when you can sue versus when you cannot.

Then we get into the structure of the market itself: ICBC’s monopoly on basic auto insurance, the argument for private sector competition, and why choice matters if you believe a public insurer is truly offering the best deal. If you care about ICBC, BC car insurance rates, and what rights drivers give up for lower premiums, this conversation will sharpen your view fast.

Subscribe for more, share this with someone debating no-fault versus a hybrid model, and leave a review with your take: should BC bring back the right to sue for serious crashes?

Follow this link for a transcript of the show.