Everyone should read this..

[Avi Singh]

The OPCF28a driver exclusion form excludes ONE specific driver in the household from operating a specific vehicle:

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/English/PU.../a-03_05-1.pdf

There is no such insurance policy that only covers people aged 25+ (although this is a common misconception). If you sign an OPCF28a stating that you will not drive your father's car, this does not stop your 19yo friend from driving your father's car. Your friend is still covered on your father's car because he did not specifically sign the OPCF28a driver exclusion form. Unless the insurance company has a form that will function as legal proof in court that you were fully aware that you were not covered on the policy (and you did not steal the vehicle or use it in a criminal act), then the insurance policy on the vehicle will cover you. How do you propose that we get an exclusion signature from everyone in the world but yourself?

I have already recognized this as a problem, and there are threads already devoted to this topic. I welcome your suggestions in the other threads.

The problem with the OPCF28a is that even if everyone signs it, the legislation is as such that if an excluded operator has an Accident Benefit claim, some benefits still get paid. I'm unsure as to the exact workings of this, perhaps Platinum or 2Smoke can chime in?

[VifferFun]

hahaha...this is awesome...you know how many more people are going to riding/driving around without insurance...no wonder we have so many hit and runs...i've had 4 hit and runs so far, one on my car, 2 on my GF's (we caught one)...and one on my aunt's car...i f#!cking hate these people...now with the rates going up...yeah...you bet i catch the idiot trying to run, first thing i'm doing is yanking the keys out of the ignition...

The point of the article is that the insurance industry wants to provide cheaper and more affordable insurance products to the public by decreasing coverage and eliminating the parasitic industry that feeds off of inflated claims. In order to do this, we require government approval. The government is thinking about it, and it sounds like there will be a positive outcome. If things work out, then you can expect rate decreases in the near future.

[VifferFun]

The problem with the OPCF28a is that even if everyone signs it, the legislation is as such that if an excluded operator has an Accident Benefit claim, some benefits still get paid. I'm unsure as to the exact workings of this, perhaps Platinum or 2Smoke can chime in?

If there was a definite way that we could ensure that no one but the principal operator actually uses the vehicle (and that it could stand up in court), then it would be possible to offer very cheap rates for your second or third vehicle. I haven't thought of a feasible way yet. In order to work, there would have to be ZERO coverage for people not listed as an operator.

[A-Dogg]

The point of the article is that the insurance industry wants to provide cheaper and more affordable insurance products to the public by decreasing coverage and eliminating the parasitic industry that feeds off of inflated claims. In order to do this, we require government approval. The government is thinking about it, and it sounds like there will be a positive outcome. If things work out, then you can expect rate decreases in the near future.

Can you please stop speaking as if you work in the marketing department. The insurance company does not want nor do they desire to make things cheaper. They do not do things for us first, they do the most profitable things for them first but try to spin it as we are doing this for you.

The insurance industry can do whatever they want to in this Province since they control the Government of this Province.

The classic was a few years ago when they said they would lower our rates by 5% but the year before got the approval to raise it 8%.
Very creative making it sound like you lowered out rates 5 whole % when you were making 3% more. My numbers may not be exact but this is the bases of what occurred as my agent was laughing with and at me when I said to him we are getting a 5% reduction.

[A-Dogg]

The problem with the OPCF28a is that even if everyone signs it, the legislation is as such that if an excluded operator has an Accident Benefit claim, some benefits still get paid. I'm unsure as to the exact workings of this, perhaps Platinum or 2Smoke can chime in?

So why can't the big powerful insurance industry close the loop hole or are they all of a sudden now powerless and deflect to the Government.

[2smokewilleh]

The problem with the OPCF28a is that even if everyone signs it, the legislation is as such that if an excluded operator has an Accident Benefit claim, some benefits still get paid. I'm unsure as to the exact workings of this, perhaps Platinum or 2Smoke can chime in?

If an excluded driver gets in an accident while driving the vehicle from which they are excluded, they would still be entitled to benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, however Section 30 Exclusions would apply which would mean that they would not be entitled to Income Replacement, Non-Earner, Housekeeping, Lost Educational Expenses and Expenses of Visitors,

That being said, they are still possibly entitle to Receive Med/Rehab $100,000/10 years, Attendant Care, $3000/mo for up to 2 years, and Caregiver Benefits (The children can't suffed for a parent's mistake): $250/wk for first child + $50/wk for every child thereafter. (For a substantial inability up to 2 years, complete inability up till the last child turns 16... That's a hell of a lot of exposure/coverage for someone who is 'excluded'

[2smokewilleh]

So why can't the big powerful insurance industry close the loop hole or are they all of a sudden now powerless and deflect to the Government.

There's no big powerful insurance industry in Ontario, it is 100% regulated, all policies offered by all companies are provided by the government, written by the government, and only edited by: guess who: THE GOVERNMENT!

All insurers in ontario offer the same policy. You get a car policy from Aviva, ING, State Farm, Grey Power, TD ETC: guess what: OAP1 - Same policy for all companies. Injured? Guess what, Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) - All companies, the same! All written by the government and forced upon the insurance companies.

[VifferFun]

Can you please stop speaking as if you work in the marketing department. The insurance company does not want nor do they desire to make things cheaper. They do not do things for us first, they do the most profitable things for them first but try to spin it as we are doing this for you.

I work in the actuarial department, and we decide what the company does with rates. You are correct that the insurance industry indeed wants to make a profit, since it is not a charity; however, I am not trying to "spin" anything. I never once said that we aren't interested in profit. We can make just as much (if not more) profit selling Kia insurance products than selling Mercedes insurance products. There is a disconnect between what we sell, and what people want. The insurance product is dictated by the government, so we have no control over the actual product -- we can only price it accordingly.

The insurance industry can do whatever they want to in this Province since they control the Government of this Province.

That comment is so ridiculous that it doesn't even warrant a response.

The classic was a few years ago when they said they would lower our rates by 5% but the year before got the approval to raise it 8%.
Very creative making it sound like you lowered out rates 5 whole % when you were making 3% more. My numbers may not be exact but this is the bases of what occurred as my agent was laughing with and at me when I said to him we are getting a 5% reduction.

All rate increases and decreases must be justified by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. It is actually quite difficult to increase rates, and it requires significant actuarial proof. FSCO also employs actuaries to ensure that there is no foul play.

Please send me a link to an article describing the situation you are speaking about. Who promised the decrease? Was it a decrease mandated by the government? Mandated decreases rarely work out. If we are already charging the price of a Buick for a Mercedes, how can we charge even less? If you want to see REAL CHANGE to your insurance premiums, it must start at the legislative level. There needs to be a change to the insurance PRODUCT, and then the changes to price will follow.

[nobbie48]

Why is it that if I own 2 or 3 motorcycles that I need to insure each one? I can only ride one at a time. Can someone please explain that to me.

It's my understanding that so many people scammed the insurers that they dropped the multi-vehicle discount to next to nothing. The good got painted with the same brush as the bad.

[2smokewilleh]

It's my understanding that so many people scammed the insurers that they dropped the multi-vehicle discount to next to nothing. The good got painted with the same brush as the bad.

Don't think so, I'm with State Farm and I still get like 20% multivehicle discount

[Freestyle72]

But you guys have to admit putting liability on all your vehicles is a pretty big scam considering u can only drive one of them at a time. Would be so much better if you were rated on the highest risk vehicle and the rest you only have to pay fire + theft + collision if needed. But paying liability on more than one vehicle is such a money grab.

[2smokewilleh]

But you guys have to admit putting liability on all your vehicles is a pretty big scam considering u can only drive one of them at a time. Would be so much better if you were rated on the highest risk vehicle and the rest you only have to pay fire + theft + collision if needed. But paying liability on more than one vehicle is such a money grab.

Consider this: You may not be able to drive both at the same time, but your friends/family/anyone else could drive that vehicle at any time. Anyone who has a G2/M2 or higher license, regardless of whether they have their own insurance, could drive one of your vehicles at any time, and therefore, there could be 2, or 3, or more of your vehicles on the road at any point.

[VifferFun]

But you guys have to admit putting liability on all your vehicles is a pretty big scam considering u can only drive one of them at a time. Would be so much better if you were rated on the highest risk vehicle and the rest you only have to pay fire + theft + collision if needed. But paying liability on more than one vehicle is such a money grab.

It's not a scam or a money grab, but I agree that it isn't completely fair to the people who own multiple vehicles with a single operator. The problem is in the implementation of such a discount. I've discussed this in other threads.

If it were possible to guarantee that the Principal Operator and ONLY the principal operator used the vehicles that he owned, then deep discounts would be possible. I don't see how such a guarantee is possible. There is no such form that the policyholder could sign that would exclude all operators but himself. The policyholder could give us "their word", but their word doesn't stand up in court. If such a product were offered, there would be an influx of policies with hidden operators.

[smokeeater341]

http://www.wheels.ca/Article%20Category/article/782240




Insurers urge limits on car injury billings

HENRY STANCU/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO

A car accident scene on Beverley St. south of Dundas St. W. is seen in this file photo.

Oct 06, 2009
Be the first to comment on this article...

James Daw
Business Columnist
A rapid rise in the cost of treating and assessing vehicle injuries – up 72 per cent in the Toronto area since 2004 – has sparked a major controversy.
Insurers are urging Ontario to either set a cap or give consumers the option of buying a lower limit of coverage for common sprain, strain and whiplash injuries as a way of heading off excessive billings, disputes and multiple assessments.
"The current system has become a licence to print money," argues George Cooke, president of Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co.
The wide variance in costs for similar injuries that is sometimes noted between Toronto and other parts of the province was illustrated by an insurer who provided 10 sample cases. There was a $33,000 difference between two cases, one involving a woman in Toronto and the other a man in London, after their Ford Econoline vans were struck from the rear as they sat at stoplights.
But, with Ontario just days away from announcing changes, lawyers, therapists and assessment providers argue there are others ways to control costs without caps or coverage options that could hurt budget-conscious consumers who suffer more serious injuries.
"The Ontario government needs to tackle the real cost-drivers in the system, instead of arbitrarily capping the benefits for Ontario drivers," argues Scott Knight, president of the Association of Independent Assessment Centres. "They should focus on tightening the process used to apply for accident benefits."
Several consumers, responding to a story in the Saturday Star about the potential for an average $400 increase in premiums in Toronto due to runaway injury costs, reacted with suspicion and decried industry practices and profits.
But profits from Ontario auto insurers disappeared last year, says Joel Baker, president of insurance data firm MSA Research Inc.
While many insurers did remain profitable, thanks to sales in other provinces or of other types of insurance, Baker estimates Ontario auto insurance produced an overall loss of $386 million last year – equal to about $60 per private passenger vehicle, compared with a profit of $205 per vehicle in 2005.
As recently as Friday, Julie Dixon, the federal Superintendent of Financial Institutions, repeated at a conference in Ottawa that property insurers should raise premiums for Ontario auto insurance if their capital is being eroded.
Earlier this year, officials at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario proposed several changes to address concerns of insurers and parties that earn an income from auto insurance premiums.
But the lightning rod has been the proposal to give consumers the choice of buying $25,000 of accident benefit coverage, instead of the current $100,000, for all but catastrophic injuries.
Other provinces have similarly low limits. But lobbyists for medical professions that bill insurers for services have predicted consumers inclined to choose the cheaper option could regret it.
Lawyer Stephen Malach, who provides mediation services for settling injury claims, predicted Monday that more affluent consumers, with access to other income and medical coverage, will opt for the lower limit, making the $100,000 coverage option more expensive for others.
He argues that a more effective way to control costs would be to set limits on the number and reimbursement for medical assessments by both the injured person's therapists and by insurers.
George Cooke said he opposes a $25,000 coverage option because it is "way too much money" for most minor sprains and strains, and not enough for more serious injuries.
He argued $2,500 to $5,000 for a strictly defined group of minor injuries would remove a lot of excess cost and disputes, while keeping the $100,000 (or a higher amount) for more serious injuries.
"I think the savings would be significant and we wouldn't be taking care away from people who really need it," he said.
Don Forgeron, president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, said "the scientific literature and the experience in other jurisdictions across Canada tells us that lower limits for strain and sprain injuries is appropriate and sufficient treatment. The difficulty is defining who would fall into this group."

[mxs]

It's not a scam or a money grab, but I agree that it isn't completely fair to the people who own multiple vehicles with a single operator. The problem is in the implementation of such a discount. I've discussed this in other threads.

If it were possible to guarantee that the Principal Operator and ONLY the principal operator used the vehicles that he owned, then deep discounts would be possible. I don't see how such a guarantee is possible. There is no such form that the policyholder could sign that would exclude all operators but himself. The policyholder could give us "their word", but their word doesn't stand up in court. If such a product were offered, there would be an influx of policies with hidden operators.

If someone lets another person drive/ride on of the many vehicles registered under his/her name (without the individual being filed as a second driver/rider), why just not to charge the driver/rider with "operating vehicle without insurance". How would this be any different than someone operating their own vehicle without proper insurance.

I understand your argument that there's no tool how to insure the one will be the only operator on more than vehicle, but what I don't get is why there's such a need for such tool. There's other ways to lay a penalty.

Am I missing something?

[VifferFun]

http://www.wheels.ca/Article%20Category/article/782240

There are a lot of real issues in that article raised regarding Ontario Insurance. The Coles notes version is:

1.) The Government dictates high limits

2.) People abuse the system due to the high limits

3.) Cost of claims rise due to the abuse, and insurers are losing money in Ontario.

4.) Insurers/Government are in a quandry: how do we reduce the limits to eliminate the abuse, while ensuring that people who are truly injured are adequately covered?

5.) Hopefully, whatever the answer to (4) ends up being, it will lead to decreased abuse of the system, and hence decreased premiums for the consumer.

[VifferFun]

If someone lets another person drive/ride on of the many vehicles registered under his/her name (without the individual being filed as a second driver/rider), why just not to charge the driver/rider with "operating vehicle without insurance". How would this be any different than someone operating their own vehicle without proper insurance.

Because the person operating the vehicle IS covered. You are allowed to lend your vehicle to other people and they are covered, so long as they have not signed an OPCF28a driver exclusion form. In order for a driver to be excluded on a vehicle, we need to have a signed copy of the OPCF28a from that specific driver.

I understand your argument that there's no tool how to insure the one will be the only operator on more than vehicle, but what I don't get is why there's such a need for such tool. There's other ways to lay a penalty.

Am I missing something?

The problem is that we won't know about the hidden operator(s) until they have to file a claim. At this point it's too late, since they are legally covered by the policy if they haven't signed a document stating that they are not.

With insurance, we price the product before we know its final cost (i.e. claims). We price the product as accurately as possible based on the risk characteristics of the policy with the goal that the premium charged matches the risk of the policy. If we don't know the true risk of the policy (since operators are hidden), then we cannot charge an adequate premium.

[A-Dogg]

Consider this: You may not be able to drive both at the same time, but your friends/family/anyone else could drive that vehicle at any time. Anyone who has a G2/M2 or higher license, regardless of whether they have their own insurance, could drive one of your vehicles at any time, and therefore, there could be 2, or 3, or more of your vehicles on the road at any point.

Consider this.
What is you are a single person with no friends or family?

It's a scam no matter how you slice it because if I took your reasoning then I might as well keep driving around without ever paying insurance.
Skip the part about jail time or the legal aspect, let's focus on the fact that I am driving a vehicle and causing accidents or I get rear ended. Who pays when a crook crashes on a stolen motorcycle?

What if someone had no insurance, the bike was parked, someone stole it and got into an accident, who pays then?

The point is if the contract states that NO OTHER person shall operate the motorcycle if so coverage will be void and you are 100% responsible for all bills they incur.

I think other States in the US allow you to insure yourself or limit the use of 1 vehicle per time. I know for people that have lots of expensive cars they just have to call, email, or fax the insurance company to let them know which car they are using that day and that car is covered.

[mxs]

The point is if the contract states that NO OTHER person shall operate the motorcycle if so coverage will be void and you are 100% responsible for all bills they incur.

Exactly .... It seems that the insurance industry conveniently assumes that if there's more than vehicle there must be more than one driver, which of course is false. I don't understand how they get away with that.

Viffer only so far confirmed that they are not able to insure that no one else will drive/ride the vehicle. But who is asking them to prove that? Me as an owner of mutli vehicles have no interest to prove that (because I have no interest anyone else driving/riding my vehicles). If anyone else, but me, is caught operating them, deny coverage. Simple as you said ... before someone says that this would mean automatically that any friends and relatives could not drive/ride my cars without me putting them temporarily on the policy first, be it. Me thinks that the industry didn't like the extra work of putting people on and off policies too often. Not enough revenue to cover that .... right?

[VifferFun]

Consider this.
What is you are a single person with no friends or family?

Then you live a lonely life.

It's a scam no matter how you slice it because if I took your reasoning then I might as well keep driving around without ever paying insurance.

Sorry Dogg, I don't understand your point.

Skip the part about jail time or the legal aspect, let's focus on the fact that I am driving a vehicle and causing accidents or I get rear ended. Who pays when a crook crashes on a stolen motorcycle?

The crook's own damages will not be covered, since they are not an invited operator. If he hits someone else, their damages will be paid for by their insurer under Uninsured Motorist coverage, which is part of the mandatory insurance package in Ontario.

What if someone had no insurance, the bike was parked, someone stole it and got into an accident, who pays then?

If the bike wasn't insured, then it is a loss for the bike owner. The theif's losses will not be covered, but if he hits someone else they will be covered by their own insurer.

The point is if the contract states that NO OTHER person shall operate the motorcycle if so coverage will be void and you are 100% responsible for all bills they incur.

I agree that this sounds nice in principle, but there is no such contract. That is my point. Even if such a contract existed and the bike owner signed it, the insurer would still have to pay the losses if a hidden operator were to get into a collision. The hidden operator will simply say that they weren't aware that they weren't covered by the owner's policy. The court will ask the insurer for proof tthat the hidden operator was fully aware that they weren't covered (i.e. an OPCF28a Driver Exclusion). Guess what? They didn't sign an exclusion, so the courts rule in their favour and their claim is covered.

I think other States in the US allow you to insure yourself or limit the use of 1 vehicle per time. I know for people that have lots of expensive cars they just have to call, email, or fax the insurance company to let them know which car they are using that day and that car is covered.

I haven't heard of such a program, but I suppose that is one way of circumventing the problem. It sounds like it would be a hassel for the brokers/agents having to deal with people calling because they want to switch their car every other day. I'm also not convinced that the courts would side in favour of the insurer if the policyholder "forgot" to switch the policy one day. I would be interested to know the insurer and the State if you can find out.

Perhaps with the advancement of technology, such a program would be possible in the future. Perhaps we could make it so that you can switch the insurance policy ON and OFF various vehicles for a given day by logging into the company website. Heck, we could even tie the website to weather patterns and charge you less on overcast days, and more on snowy days. The daily premium could be posted to the website just as if you were checking the weather. The problem is that people with such a plan would turn the insurance off for days when they aren't using the car, meaning less premium volume, meaning more losses-to-premiums for the insurer, meaning rate increases. In order to allow someone to pay a daily rate, the daily rate would have to ve more costly than if you were on an annual insurance policy.