Proof that multiple bikes need multiple accident benefit premiums?

[VifferFun]

I think its funny how none of the insurance "professionals" have anything to say...

I have lots to say, and I've already said it in other threads. I'm not avoiding anything. I have nothing but common sense to support my claim that if a giant loophole exists, then people will exploit it. We already have problems with hidden operators, and this just makes it even easier to do so. In the event of a claim with a hidden operator, the vehicle owner would simply state that they lent their bike out for the day, where as in reality the hidden operator has been using it as their main mode of transportation, and paying next to no premium for the added risk.

The only way we could charge a single Liability and Accident Benefits premium for a person who owns multiple vehicles is if we can exclude all operators on the vehicles other than the owner. To the best of my knowledge, this cannot not be done under the current insurance law set by the Ontario Government. If this were possible, I would be the first person to suggest this project's implementation . . . I would benefit from it as well!

[VifferFun]

I wouldn't mind paying whatever is the more expensive premium of the two bikes. I wouldn't mind signing an agreement with my premium saying in the event I am found not riding one of the two vehicles in question my policy is null and void and non-refundable (thereby removing any potential losses from the insurance co.) but they won't let me do that. They won't let me love my bikes.

WHY WON'T YOU LET ME LOVE MY BIKES?!?

(I think it's because they know most people will pay two separate policies, I think I smell greed, *sniff sniff*, I do! I do smell greed!)

You are describing the situation where this would be possible, but we cannot simply draft a form for you to sign that will exclude all operators on the vehicle but yourself. If this were possible, then a single premium would be possible.

I will look into it a bit more.

[forexman]

I am sure it can be done given that insurance companies regularly exclude licensed drivers (OPCF 28A) in a household from driving a vehicle due to their poor driving history, then why can that form not be modified to exclude everyone besides the named operator from driving the vehicle?

If the policy will not pay out when one is excluded then all can be excluded passing on the savings to the insured.

The only way we could charge a single Liability and Accident Benefits premium for a person who owns multiple vehicles is if we can exclude all operators on the vehicles other than the owner. To the best of my knowledge, this cannot not be done under the current insurance law set by the Ontario Government. If this were possible, I would be the first person to suggest this project's implementation . . . I would benefit from it as well!

[Skurj]

You have said it before I think Viffer... or at least something along the lines...

It should not be the vehicle that is insured, it should be the operator with the vehicle(s) factoring in on the rates. Accident benefits do not do anything to fix a damaged vehicle...

The operator should pay X for accident benefits and liability based on highest risk vehicle perhaps, and then collision and comprehensive variables on each vehicle there after.

I have no objections to paying multiple premiums for collision and comprehensive/all perils etc. I just object to paying multiple accident benefits and liability fees.

If i get hit riding bike 1, my accident benefits kick in. If I hop on Bike 2, will I automatically qualify for double accident benefits? Thats what I pay.. (double that is)
Lets say Bike 1 got fixed real quick I go out again and get hit again...

I would love to know how this is allowed...

[AdRath]

You have said it before I think Viffer... or at least something along the lines...

It should not be the vehicle that is insured, it should be the operator with the vehicle(s) factoring in on the rates. Accident benefits do not do anything to fix a damaged vehicle...

The operator should pay X for accident benefits and liability based on highest risk vehicle perhaps, and then collision and comprehensive variables on each vehicle there after.

I have no objections to paying multiple premiums for collision and comprehensive/all perils etc. I just object to paying multiple accident benefits and liability fees.

If i get hit riding bike 1, my accident benefits kick in. If I hop on Bike 2, will I automatically qualify for double accident benefits? Thats what I pay.. (double that is)
Lets say Bike 1 got fixed real quick I go out again and get hit again...

I would love to know how this is allowed...

Yes I agree. I've said it many times its silly that you have to have a liability policy for every vehicle even when it exceeds possible drivers in the household. I would love to hear an explanation for this? Rate each person based on their 'highest liability' vehicle and be done with it. Seperate policies for collison etc make sense but liability on each vehicle is just wrong.

[2smokewilleh]

Its entirely possible.. I'd say probably half of the claims I see the vehicle wasn't being driven by the owner - that goes for bikes as well.

[VifferFun]

You have said it before I think Viffer... or at least something along the lines...

It should not be the vehicle that is insured, it should be the operator with the vehicle(s) factoring in on the rates. Accident benefits do not do anything to fix a damaged vehicle...

The operator should pay X for accident benefits and liability based on highest risk vehicle perhaps, and then collision and comprehensive variables on each vehicle there after.

I have no objections to paying multiple premiums for collision and comprehensive/all perils etc. I just object to paying multiple accident benefits and liability fees.

If i get hit riding bike 1, my accident benefits kick in. If I hop on Bike 2, will I automatically qualify for double accident benefits? Thats what I pay.. (double that is)
Lets say Bike 1 got fixed real quick I go out again and get hit again...

I would love to know how this is allowed...

I don't think you're considering the consequences of your suggestion. Suppose we insured the operator instead of the vehicle (as you suggest) . . . then the families with a single vehicle would be penalized because they would have to pay a full premium for each operator in the household. When their child turns 16yo, they would have to pay a full premium as well, just to learn how to drive. Although your suggestion is technically possible (should the Gov't allow it), it would essentially benefit the welathy (those with more vehicles than operators) and disadvantage the poor (those with a single vehicle servicing multiple family members). Good luck getting a Government to agree to this

There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

[FriendlyFoe]

I don't think you're considering the consequences of your suggestion. Suppose we insured the operator instead of the vehicle (as you suggest) . . . then the families with a single vehicle would be penalized because they would have to pay a full premium for each operator in the household. When their child turns 16yo, they would have to pay a full premium as well, just to learn how to drive. Although your suggestion is technically possible (should the Gov't allow it), it would essentially benefit the welathy (those with more vehicles than operators) and disadvantage the poor (those with a single vehicle servicing multiple family members). Good luck getting a Government to agree to this

There are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

Thats exactly what they do. When i was growing up on my parents vehicle which ever kid that started driving (they didnt charge for learners) who ever was the highest risk driver got insured on the most expensive vehicles. Then so on and so forth next cheapest driver next most expensive vehicle.

In addition as far as i've ever understood, they do insure a driver, as if i get in a friends car as a one time thing, and i have insurance on my own vehicle, if i get in an accident with my friends car my insurance will cover it.

The only time they dont insure the driver, is when its more profitable to bill 1 person for multiple vehicles. And i dont see what would prevent an insurance company from drafting a document to say the owner of 5 vehicles is the only person insured to drive them. If it's signed by both parties, and does not break any laws, i fail to see the problem.

Now odds are they wouldn't do this unless they had to, realistically they would lose profit they are already making. They dont do it in alberta, it's full premium for every vehicle. I could have sworn at one point in ontario i did sign exactly the document i'm talking about, but it's been years and i was young, so i dont believe i have the specifics of that information available to me.

[adri]

You are describing the situation where this would be possible, but we cannot simply draft a form for you to sign that will exclude all operators on the vehicle but yourself. If this were possible, then a single premium would be possible.

I will look into it a bit more.

Thanks. I assumed that given the potential "no-loss" option for the insurance co. it would seem possible. When you say "we cannot simply draft a form for you to sign ...." did you mean "we" as in brokers or "we" as in the insurance companies themselves? Whatever the case, why is the exclusion not possible? Government crap or ...?

Thanks for looking into it =) I had my bike in the shop for 3 days and had to borrow a bicycle that was last used in 1978, nearly died! Would've been great to just take my scooter out while the motorcycle was in the shop, but right now I can't afford an extra half a grand to have a vehicle on the road 3 days a year.

[Skurj]

My parents had to remove me as an occasional and sign something or the ins co was going to cancel on them, so I hardly see what the difference is.

In the case of one vehicle multiple operators you take the highest risk operator and charge that rate if they are in same household, and only those signed to the policy can operate it.

If the household has 2 vehicles and 2 or more operators ya start at the top of the risk, and work down for each vehicle, because the high risk operator can still only be driving one of the vehicles at any time.

[psycho44]

I understand your frustration . . . if this rule didn't exist, I would probably own two cars and two bikes myself.

and we wonder why the auto sector gets bailout money.

[VifferFun]

Thats exactly what they do. When i was growing up on my parents vehicle which ever kid that started driving (they didnt charge for learners) who ever was the highest risk driver got insured on the most expensive vehicles. Then so on and so forth next cheapest driver next most expensive vehicle.

You are describing the situation where there are more operators than vehicles but the number of policies you purchase will not exceed the number of vehicles. If you were to insure the person rather than the vehicle, a family of four with a single vehicle would need four insurance policies.

In addition as far as i've ever understood, they do insure a driver, as if i get in a friends car as a one time thing, and i have insurance on my own vehicle, if i get in an accident with my friends car my insurance will cover it.

If you get into an accident while operating your friend's car, his insurance pays for any damages/injuries, not yours. You are covered on your friend's car regardless of whether or not you have your own car/policy. If you have your own policy, some companies may allow the fault in the claim to follow your claims history rather than your friends.

I don't work in claims, so hopefully one of the Claims guys will correct me if I'm wrong.

The only time they dont insure the driver, is when its more profitable to bill 1 person for multiple vehicles. And i dont see what would prevent an insurance company from drafting a document to say the owner of 5 vehicles is the only person insured to drive them. If it's signed by both parties, and does not break any laws, i fail to see the problem.

I have been told it's not possible. If you can show me that it is possible, I will definitely look into it.

Now odds are they wouldn't do this unless they had to, realistically they would lose profit they are already making. They dont do it in alberta, it's full premium for every vehicle. I could have sworn at one point in ontario i did sign exactly the document i'm talking about, but it's been years and i was young, so i dont believe i have the specifics of that information available to me.

To my knowledge, no such document has existed (but I could be wrong). If such a document is possible, I would definitely look into it. I have raised this concern with my employer once before.

[Platinum Cycle]

and we wonder why the auto sector gets bailout money.

Don't confuse the auto manufacturers with auto insurers.

GM = Bailout.

Auto insurer = no bailout, instead they go bankrupt. And that's never a good thing for someone waiting to get their claim paid. (See Maplex General and Markham General as two examples that come to mind).

[VifferFun]

Thanks. I assumed that given the potential "no-loss" option for the insurance co. it would seem possible. When you say "we cannot simply draft a form for you to sign ...." did you mean "we" as in brokers or "we" as in the insurance companies themselves? Whatever the case, why is the exclusion not possible? Government crap or ...?

The Gov't is in charge of the endorsement forms that we can use. For example, the plain vanilla Excluded Driver Endorsement is known as OPCF28a which can be found here:

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/English/pu...05/a-03_05.asp

Just doing a little bit of digging, there are Filing Guidelines for non-standard endorsements which can be found here:

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/English/pu.../a-03_05-3.pdf

Honestly, I haven't dealt much with these endorsements. Most companies offer the standard endorsements, and we don't have to do much actuarial analysis as far as they're concerned. Reading the guidelines, it looks like the insurer has the option to file a non-standard document in hopes that it would be approved by FSCO. I'm not sure whether an "exclude everyone but me" endorsement would fly or not.

It is true that insurers are currently making a lot of money on people who are paying multiple premiums when there are more vehicles than operators (since you can only drive one vehicle at a time and under the current system you don't have a negative hidden operator impact). If an innovative company were able to attract these multi-vehicle risks by offering low Liability and Accident Benefits premiums on their 2nd, 3rd, etc. vehicle, then they could profit by expanding their marketshare . . . but this is only possible with the exclude-all document.

[VifferFun]

and we wonder why the auto sector gets bailout money.

Used vehicles

If I could own two vehicles and pay a single premium, I would have my current ride supplemented with a diesel-sipping TDi for the long trips. This is for overall fuel savings.

[adri]

It is true that insurers are currently making a lot of money on people who are paying multiple premiums when there are more vehicles than operators (since you can only drive one vehicle at a time and under the current system you don't have a negative hidden operator impact). If an innovative company were able to attract these multi-vehicle risks by offering low Liability and Accident Benefits premiums on their 2nd, 3rd, etc. vehicle, then they could profit by expanding their marketshare . . . but this is only possible with the exclude-all document.

Time to tell your boss you have an idea that could rapidly expand your market share! When you get promoted for your groundbreaking idea we'll go out for a beer to celebrate - but I'm not letting you ride my bike

[VifferFun]

Time to tell your boss you have an idea that could rapidly expand your market share! When you get promoted for your groundbreaking idea we'll go out for a beer to celebrate - but I'm not letting you ride my bike

I don't know what is involved in applying for a non-standard endorsement form with FSCO and what we are allowed to apply for, but I will take a look when I have time.

[Skurj]

SO no insurer can provide any other justification except that the insured is likely to let someone else ride/drive the 2nd vehicle therefore accident benefiits and liability are needed?

Reminds me of a Tom Cruise movie I once saw...

[VifferFun]

SO no insurer can provide any other justification except that the insured is likely to let someone else ride/drive the 2nd vehicle therefore accident benefiits and liability are needed?

Precisely. Unless there is a way of ensuring (and enforcing) that no other operator can use the vehicle, this is impossible.

[AdRath]

Precisely. Unless there is a way of ensuring (and enforcing) that no other operator can use the vehicle, this is impossible.

What is the difference between this and letting an uninsured 18 year old drive your car? There is the same draw back of lack of coverage for that person (its my understanding you have to be 25 to be covered on anothers policy?). They can't guarentee that if I have an 18 year old son he won't let his friends drive the car. Maybe I'm missing something here but isn't the way to inforce it to deny coverage if the conditions agreed upon aren't met?