TorStar: Motorists to get break on soaring insurance

[VifferFun]

why is it that when ever someone asks a question....challenges something said.....express their oppinions with specific and coherient examples.....the insurance people on this site always think we don't understand.

for the last time......... WE DO UNDERSTAND.

we are just all fed up with the ********.

Some people do have a good grasp on the mechanics and offer some very good suggestions and valid complaints, while others are here to simply vent/complain.

[VifferFun]

Wait a second... I had a 2001 V6 Pathfinder and got rid of it and bought a 2007 4Runner. The 4runner is a V8 as well, I pay much less for the 4Runner cause its safety rating is much better.

So if MY safer vehicle is less, how come his safer vehicle is more? You can't have it both ways (even though you do)

The main difference in premium between Private Passenger and Antique Vehicles is the USE, not the safety of the vehicle. An insurance rate is comprised of many factors, some that increase your rate and others that decrease your rate. The rate decrease due to the use of an antique vehicle is very significant.

BTW, the rate groups (AB-CL-CM) for the 2001 Nissan Pathfinder XE is 03-23-23, where as the rate groups for the 2007 Toyota 4Runner Sport V8 is 02-29-35. This means that the 4Runner is has a better Accident Benefits claims experience, but a worse Collision and Comprehensive claims experience than the Nissan. Your AB premium should be lower, but your Collision and Comprehensive higher.

[VifferFun]

Grundy in the US offers Silver Wheels style policies with no age restriction....Ontario fails to offer a comparable product

Aviva - the underwriter has appraisals on both cars.....and the modern Stang is way more of a show car than the roadster....pictures and appraisal descriptions support this....not to mention the embarassing annual mileage......

and on my policy details it states the mileage on both cars as under 2000 kms per season....although I don't believe there is actually a mileage restriction on the Silver Wheels policy.....there is definitely a "usage" restriction....only car-related events....cruises, shows etc...."pleasure driving only

I've blantantly stated my use of both vehicles over the last 5+ years under the same broker....it is 100% compliant to the very strict restrictions.....and I've kept my end of the deal since day 1 of ownership

so why is there not a policy for a modern vehicle that enjoys the same crazy low rates as the 15+ year old vehicles if used under the same restrictions?

like I've been saying....you cannot convince me that I'm not getting scammed when it's happening right in front of my eyes......the industry will tell me that no policy exists for this type of ownership and I say make one and stop ripping me off....and go give Grundy a call in the states and ask him why he can offer it

An antique policy (i.e. Silver Wheels) is for antique cars. I suppose you are looking for "show car" insurance coverage, which actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. In your opinion, is there a large demand for such a coverage?

One complication would be weeding out the people who will try to claim that their souped-up 2003 Honda Civic is only used on weekends and for shows, where as they are really driving it to school every day.

[2smokewilleh]

I say make one and stop ripping me off....and go give Grundy a call in the states and ask him why he can offer it

This isnt the USA. We know why Grundy in the states can offer it, because his government doesnt dictate what policy a company can and can't offer.

Insurance companies in ontario can't just 'make' policies. They're all created/maintained/regulated by the ontario government. The insurance companies don't have the option to make their own policy, that is the government's perogative. I suggest that you contact your local Member of Provincial Parlaiment, and make your suggestion.

[82Seca750]

An antique policy (i.e. Silver Wheels) is for antique cars. I suppose you are looking for "show car" insurance coverage, which actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. In your opinion, is there a large demand for such a coverage?

not sure that I'd limit it to "show cars" - but having some sort of affordable option for the "seasonal weekend only toy" that at least addresses what many hobbiests/enthusiasts have would be a good start......not everyone wants a 25 year old classic....and only a few build show cars

when they put a modern passenger vehicle under the "lowest" annual km threshold in an attempt to lower the premium, the threshold is 10,000kms.....seasonal weekend toys won't even do half that....and a way lower limit (say 4000 kms) would be sufficient

throw in clauses like (in Ontario specifically) road coverage from April-Nov...must be garage kept....must have a daily driver under joint policy etc....and throw in a driver's age limit as well.....if it's a baby....you're not driving it in the salt and crap, so seasonal coverage would be a no-brainer and easily agreed too....if not, get regular coverage and pay up

One complication would be weeding out the people who will try to claim that their souped-up 2003 Honda Civic is only used on weekends and for shows, where as they are really driving it to school every day.

I'm well aware of that complication as I've had many conversations with Tony Lant....and that's his biggest complaint cause someone insures a 1980 Firebird and gets annual premiums of like $150....and their kid is driving it to school and it turns out to be a heap...not someone's toy

not sure how they slip through the cracks of his policies because they need appraisals

again.....put restrictions on age, years licensed etc.....and make it seasonal

the funny thing about the classic policies is you never remove coverage....it's full coverage at drastically reduced rates for 12 months of the year regardless of whether it's in storage or not....so maybe Tony should think about making it seasonal as a way of weeding out the BSers....

anyway....at the rate the current system is going, I'm not inspired to add another toy into the stable...it's the opposite because I'm getting rooked as is

[2smokewilleh]

I'm well aware of that complication as I've had many conversations with Tony Lant....and that's his biggest complaint cause someone insures a 1980 Firebird and gets annual premiums of like $150....and their kid is driving it to school and it turns out to be a heap...not someone's toy

not sure how they slip through the cracks of his policies because they need appraisals

This usually only slips through the cracks until they get in an accident and need to make a claim, then they usually will get busted, which could result in a denial of a claim due to material mis-representation of the risk... or, the claim gets through, but they end up getting their policy cancelled once the underwriters find out that the vehicle isnt being used as it has been said....

Sometimes it could take years if ever tho

[82Seca750]

This usually only slips through the cracks until they get in an accident and need to make a claim, then they usually will get busted, which could result in a denial of a claim due to material mis-representation of the risk... or, the claim gets through, but they end up getting their policy cancelled once the underwriters find out that the vehicle isnt being used as it has been said....

Sometimes it could take years if ever tho

I understand that.....and the risk some boneheads try to get away with inevitably means they're running without coverage

however, the article posted talks about ways the industry is going to change to make policies more affordable

so why would my suggestion of "seasonal weekend toy" coverage not be considered?

we're talking about people literally buying that toy (extra vehicle) for the purpose of nothing but weekend pleasure driving, and yet the system starts with "passenger vehicle" standard coverage and your only options for lowering the premium is pretty much high deductables and a low km threshold thats 2 x 5 times what the vehicle will travel

the Gov't simply wants a flat across the board lowering of injury payouts....which I get even though it'll likely screw the odd person cause the problem isn't the truly injured, it's the high priced swarming vultures....but it sure doesn't put the insurance industry in an inspiring position now does it?

you guys once again come out as scammers cause you've not invented anything that would even try to address individual needs.....just lowered the bar for everyone

maybe someone from the insurance industry could tap on Mr. Duncan's shoulder and suggest an approach that focuses on the individual's needs and stop treating us all (especially in the GTA) like scammers in the waiting....put strict regs on the limited coverage options and simultaneously come back to the public with a few positives rather than the typical bend over and take it strategy

[VifferFun]

I understand that.....and the risk some boneheads try to get away with inevitably means they're running without coverage

however, the article posted talks about ways the industry is going to change to make policies more affordable

so why would my suggestion of "seasonal weekend toy" coverage not be considered?

we're talking about people literally buying that toy (extra vehicle) for the purpose of nothing but weekend pleasure driving, and yet the system starts with "passenger vehicle" standard coverage and your only options for lowering the premium is pretty much high deductables and a low km threshold thats 2 x 5 times what the vehicle will travel

You have a point, no doubt; however, I don't think that seasonal toys are high on the priority list of products to make affordable. The main concern at his moment are the daily-driver vehicles that people need for daily life. This is not to say that a specialized product for high-value show vehicles such as your own would not be a good idea.

the Gov't simply wants a flat across the board lowering of injury payouts....which I get even though it'll likely screw the odd person cause the problem isn't the truly injured, it's the high priced swarming vultures....but it sure doesn't put the insurance industry in an inspiring position now does it?

you guys once again come out as scammers cause you've not invented anything that would even try to address individual needs.....just lowered the bar for everyone

We cannot make modifications to the insurance product. In my opinion, the proposed changes are not a good way to go about tackling the problem. The caps on minor tissue injuries will not be capped for catastrophic claims, so the truly injured will still get the payments they deserve.

maybe someone from the insurance industry could tap on Mr. Duncan's shoulder and suggest an approach that focuses on the individual's needs and stop treating us all (especially in the GTA) like scammers in the waiting....put strict regs on the limited coverage options and simultaneously come back to the public with a few positives rather than the typical bend over and take it strategy

The Government has the power. W can make suggestions, but they will do what they think is best.