TorStar: Motorists to get break on soaring insurance

[82Seca750]

You have a point . . . people who frequently make not-at-fault claims might be more likely to make not-at-fault claims in the future. I wasn't saying that this wasn't the case; however, we aren't allowed to rate on not-at-fault claims due to regulation. We can increase the deductible to limit the poetntial for future losses, but that is about it.

My not-at-fault claims were all due to bad luck and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I actually had a string of bad luck over a five-year time span, but have been quite lucky (knock on wood) for the last five years.

I used to live in Toronto but I moved to a smaller city west of Toronto and my rates decreased significantly as a result. My rates increased this year, but not as much as someone who would live in the GTA.

Don't forget that it isn't only your location that determines your rate . . . that is just one of many factors. People in Toronto claim about double what people in other small Ontario cities claim, so it only makes sense that they have to pay more.

but I haven't claimed anything and I live in Toronto...so why should I pay more?

and what's the reason not-at-fault claims aren't allowed to be rated on.....seems to me based on your 5 claims and my zero claims that maybe it should be looked at cause I'm feeling like I'm paying to fix your string of bad luck and you're not

and when you moved to a smaller city west....did your time on the roads increase due to more time commuting and more distance travelled? let alone the probable use of higher speed controlled access highways (destined to cause higher personal injuries as the result of a crash at higher speeds) versus my short treks on 60kph crowded mainstreets (that will bend fenders but will keep personal injuries at a much lower severity due to way slower speeds)

I'm starting to think that maybe the roles and thinking should be reversed....and the GTA folks are getting fed a steaming pile here

[VifferFun]

but I haven't claimed anything and I live in Toronto...so why should I pay more?

You pay more because Toronto is a higher risk for claims . . . you haven't claimed yet, but you may need to make a claim in the future and it could be a large one. Since you have a spotless record, you will pay less than your Toronto neighbour who has a marred record.

and what's the reason not-at-fault claims aren't allowed to be rated on.....seems to me based on your 5 claims and my zero claims that maybe it should be looked at cause I'm feeling like I'm paying to fix your string of bad luck and you're not

I don't think many people would be pleased if their rate skyrocketed because some idiot rear-ended them while they were stopped at a light. I believe this is the reason for the regulation.

and when you moved to a smaller city west....did your time on the roads increase due to more time commuting and more distance travelled? let alone the probable use of higher speed controlled access highways (destined to cause higher personal injuries as the result of a crash at higher speeds) versus my short treks on 60kph crowded mainstreets (that will bend fenders but will keep personal injuries at a much lower severity due to way slower speeds)

Actually, my travel distance decreased significantly. I used to travel out of the city all of the time, but I'm sure that I am a unique circumstance. I used to drive in excess of 800km a week, and now I am down to about 350km a week.

Even slow-speed collisions can cause huge Accident Benefits claims, especially when creative lawyers get involved. Lawyers are alive and well in Toronto, which is probably the reason why the claims experience is so bad compared to other smaller Ontario cities. Regardless of the fact that rural drivers might drive longer distances on more dangerous highways, the fact of the matter is that the claim significantly less than Torontonians.

I'm starting to think that maybe the roles and thinking should be reversed....and the GTA folks are getting fed a steaming pile here

GTA residents claim MUCH more than the average Ontarian. The rates would not be allowed to be higher in Toronto compared to other cities unless it is justified with statistical proof. The regulator (FSCO) must approve every burp, fart, and sneeze of an insurance company, and this includes changes to Territorial factors.

[eastcoast_gsx]

since all claims can affect your rate.

Of course... I mean, it must be your fault, you own a home.

[eastcoast_gsx]

Viffer... in the real world, your numbers will always fail you.

[82Seca750]

GTA residents claim MUCH more than the average Ontarian. The rates would not be allowed to be higher in Toronto compared to other cities unless it is justified with statistical proof. The regulator (FSCO) must approve every burp, fart, and sneeze of an insurance company, and this includes changes to Territorial factors.

I've been telling you I've made no claims....I live in Toronto....you keep telling me I'm at a higher risk and I barely drive my vehicles.....and apparently you believe that I might make a future claim and it "could be a large one"...WTF?

you're telling me you made 5 claims....you don't live in Toronto....you tell me you drive 350kms per week....while I don't even drive 50 kms per week

is this just word-smithing to screw the GTA

are the total # of claims much higher in the GTA simply because there's more people, hence more claims....or do idividual GTA residents make more individual claims?

[2smokewilleh]

are the total # of claims much higher in the GTA simply because there's more people, hence more claims....or do idividual GTA residents make more individual claims?

Both.

There are more claims per capita in the GTA, and the claims on average are 3-5 times higher in payouts due to creative lawyers seeking huge benefit payouts.

[Gixxer6]

Does anyone here know, if and when a claim is made are the stats for that claim based on where the claimant lives or where the accident/ incident took place?

[VifferFun]

Of course... I mean, it must be your fault, you own a home.

Homeowners insurance does not have the same regulation, so we are allowed to surcharge for claims (even if it isn't their "fault", since fault doesn't really make sense in Homeowners insurance).

[VifferFun]

I've been telling you I've made no claims....I live in Toronto....you keep telling me I'm at a higher risk and I barely drive my vehicles.....and apparently you believe that I might make a future claim and it "could be a large one"...WTF?

When you drive in Toronto, chances are much greater that you will be involved in a Collision than if you live in, say, Windsor. In addition, once you make a claim in Toronto, the chances of the claim escalating to a high-dollar amount is much greater than Windsor.

you're telling me you made 5 claims....you don't live in Toronto....you tell me you drive 350kms per week....while I don't even drive 50 kms per week

is this just word-smithing to screw the GTA

Guess where I lived when my car was vandalized, broken into twice, and hit by inattentive drivers? You guessing it . . . Toronto! Now that I'm out of Toronto, I haven't had any more no-at-fault claims.

are the total # of claims much higher in the GTA simply because there's more people, hence more claims....or do idividual GTA residents make more individual claims?

2smokewilleh already pointed it out; frequency and severity is much higher in Toronto than in other Ontario cities.

[VifferFun]

Does anyone here know, if and when a claim is made are the stats for that claim based on where the claimant lives or where the accident/ incident took place?

The accident is attributed to where the driver lives, rather than where the accident occurred. I've explained why I think this is a problem in my sticky.

[82Seca750]

Both.

There are more claims per capita in the GTA, and the claims on average are 3-5 times higher in payouts due to creative lawyers seeking huge benefit payouts.

yeah but Viffer also said that you aren't allowed to rate on not-at-fault claims due to regulation

and yet the industry now singles out an entire market and decides to raise the premiums on every resident regardless of their driving record or record of NO claims

so which is it.....can you rate on claims or can't you?

seems that you can when it's convenient for you

you guys have that other poll thread on accountable vs affordable....and you're neither and proving it with every post

[82Seca750]

When you drive in Toronto, chances are much greater that you will be involved in a Collision than if you live in, say, Windsor. In addition, once you make a claim in Toronto, the chances of the claim escalating to a high-dollar amount is much greater than Windsor.



Guess where I lived when my car was vandalized, broken into twice, and hit by inattentive drivers? You guessing it . . . Toronto! Now that I'm out of Toronto, I haven't had any more no-at-fault claims.



2smokewilleh already pointed it out; frequency and severity is much higher in Toronto than in other Ontario cities.

same question for you

you said you are regulated so you can't rate on claims....so why point the finger (or should I say flip the finger) at the GTA?

you're apparently breaking the same regulations that you're employed to uphold

I've seen (and understand) your post on how the insurance industry is based on the full collective....so basically everyone pays for everyone

but now you want to single out the GTA....conveniently imo

as far as I'm concerned, based on the fact that you drive 7x more than I do, your rate should be astronomically more than mine

my rate on one car is under $20/month stored....yet nearly $200/month insured to drive...even though it's driven the odd Sunday...oohh ahh even in my high risk area

so it's quite apparent that simply driving the vehicle puts you at 10x the risk versus parked...and since you drive 7x the amount that I do...that you should pay boatloads more than I

so lets change the system to kms driven as the expensive caveat.....and lets forget this BS system of population density

[AdRath]

I'm in the same situation. I own a car becasue with a young child it is a must. I drive only a few KMs a week yet I am paying more because I live in Toronto then someone who lives outside the city but drives for a living (even drives downtown gasp).

My situation is the same as most of my co-workers who live downtown and own a car. They need to for family reasons but almost never drive it yet they are made to pay more because they live downtown Toronto. Seems odd that a car that sits most of the time is a higher risk for accidents doesnt it?

[psycho44]

same with me. I got a car that I'm paying over $100/month rarely used at all. Need it just case of emergencies or the winters when the scooter can't trek through 5 inches of snow.

I've drove for over 10 years with no claims. 3 of those years I practically lived on the road or highway so to speak going from cities to cities as part of my job. But yet my rates keep going up for being a spotless driver with more experience.

I'm all for an insurance based on kms and I'm not talking about the Aviva one. From what I've heard they don't give much discount unless you're close to perfect according to their system. And I think they make it up with a higher premium anyways.

[eastcoast_gsx]

Guys guys... you folks are forgetting the most important thing here....

You gentleman; are the insurance industries bread and butter... next to NO risk, (but they can say you are because your neighbor is) and can afford to pay for the luxury of owning a car.

Silly citizens... when will you learn... tell em Viffer... and Smokie.

[twinn]

Amount of km driven does not equal higher risk.

Look at long haul truck drivers, they drive more in one year then most people will do in 5, yet they are not 5 times as likely to be in an accident.

the problem with insurance is that all of the legit policy holders are being forced to subsidize the fraudsters. It seems that some heavy poitical lobbies have vested interests in keeping the fraudlant claims going:

Medical lobby who provides referal and treatment for non existent injuries

Lawyer lobby that makes money of the insurance fraud.

Insurance companies do not have a huge incentive to reduce this fraud, they provide a product that is mandatory to purchase, they have 100% guaranteed customers, only competetion is between themselves, usually rates move in sync with each other im sure that rating criteria that viffer is talking about is 90% the same.

As for profit margins, when you are selling a mandatory product with a guaranteed customer base, 5% is plenty. The business model is based on volume and not cost per unit of product. They know that even if they lose money one year, next year they will apply for and being given permission to raise rates. Look at that model over the 10 years, they may have losing years but are 100% certain to make money 7 out of those 10 years.

If they where losing money or projected a long term loss, they would not be fitting the gov't run insurance. If they were looking at long term projections of loss, they would fold up their Ontario business and close. Or they would support a quasi govt/private run insurance scheme, as it stands they are all against it.

[eastcoast_gsx]

Insurance companies do not have a huge incentive to reduce this fraud, they provide a product that is mandatory to purchase, they have 100% guaranteed customers, only competetion is between themselves, usually rates move in sync with each other im sure that rating criteria that viffer is talking about is 90% the same.

As for profit margins, when you are selling a mandatory product with a guaranteed customer base, 5% is plenty. The business model is based on volume and not cost per unit of product. They know that even if they lose money one year, next year they will apply for and being given permission to raise rates. Look at that model over the 10 years, they may have losing years but are 100% certain to make money 7 out of those 10 years.

If they where losing money or projected a long term loss, they would not be fitting the gov't run insurance. If they were looking at long term projections of loss, they would fold up their Ontario business and close. Or they would support a quasi govt/private run insurance scheme, as it stands they are all against it.

Very well said.

[mxs]

True .... like with cancer treatments (not sure it's the right word here ...). More money is spent on cancer research, but more people die every year from cancer than ever before .... do you think that there is a real will to stop the money making machine .... millions of people would loose jobs (doctors, health care and pharmaceutical sector, cemetery workers, funeral houses and the list goes on and on ..... cruel, but unfortunately true.

[Grimmy]

Good post Twinn.

I agree with Seca750...

And Viffer, you are accident prone. I'd revoke your insurance immiediatly. At least 1/2 of your accidents I predict where preventable by you, even though you weren't "at fault".

[VifferFun]

yeah but Viffer also said that you aren't allowed to rate on not-at-fault claims due to regulation

and yet the industry now singles out an entire market and decides to raise the premiums on every resident regardless of their driving record or record of NO claims

so which is it.....can you rate on claims or can't you?

seems that you can when it's convenient for you

you guys have that other poll thread on accountable vs affordable....and you're neither and proving it with every post

Please read the part in my sticky about rating factors. We have territorial rating factors, which distinguish one region from another. We also have a Driving Record factor (which is the number of years at-fault claim free). We also have a multitude of other factors, discounts, and surcharges that are all used to calculate your individual premium. Your Driving Record will not be adversely affected due to a not-at-fault claim. This is not the same thing as the overall claims experience deteriorating for your given region, vehicle type, age group, etc. etc.