Proof that multiple bikes need multiple accident benefit premiums?

[VifferFun]

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

If you are letting the unlisted 18yo drive your car on a regular basis (against the rules), then are you walking while he uses the car? If you happen to own a second car, then you are currently paying two premiums -- although we are not collecting adequate premium for the 18yo, at least it's something.

The proposal is that a single person can insure multiple cars with a single premium. In this case, the insurer would collect only one premium, yet both you and the 18yo are operating the two cars at the same time. Better yet, you could own three cars and lend out two on a regular basis. This is the reason why the "exclude all" document is critical.

(its my understanding you have to be 25 to be covered on anothers policy?).

That's a minunderstanding. Why do people always think this? You can let a newly-licensed G1 operator drive your vehicle if you want to, provided they obey the rules of their license.

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?

We can't simply take the word of the insured that they will not let anyone else operate their vehicles . . . this would never hold up in court. We need a document, signed by you . . . and even still, I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer could argue that in court as well.

[2smokewilleh]

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?

It would make sence to have some sort of option, again if you have a suggestion, contact your local MPP and suggest a change to the insurance act.

[AdRath]

It would make sence to have some sort of option, again if you have a suggestion, contact your local MPP and suggest a change to the insurance act.

I might just do that. Although since I moved last Sept I need to find out who my new local guy. I wouldn't be surprised if it fell on def ears as most people aren't aware of this sort of thing or it isn't even on the radar as something worth the MPP looking into but it can't hurt.

I didn't realize it was that complicated. I was always under the impression that if its written in the policy and you don't comply coverage is denied.

[forexman]

Ok so the Insurance company wants to cover its A** and charge liability on each policy that is understandable, but in a scenario where we have one operator with multiple vehicles why the need for multiple AB coverages? Are they going to pay twice the AB if my AB on the motorcycle coverage runs out can I tap the AB component in my car policy after all it was an auto related claim?

[2smokewilleh]

Ok so the Insurance company wants to cover its A** and charge liability on each policy that is understandable, but in a scenario where we have one operator with multiple vehicles why the need for multiple AB coverages? Are they going to pay twice the AB if my AB on the motorcycle coverage runs out can I tap the AB component in my car policy after all it was an auto related claim?

Again, the policy that the insurance companies sell is dictated by the Ontario Government. The insurance company does not have the option of "Not" selling Manditory coverages on a policy. If you think they should have the ability to remove manditory coverages, contact your MPP and suggest that that be changed.

[VifferFun]

Ok so the Insurance company wants to cover its A** and charge liability on each policy that is understandable, but in a scenario where we have one operator with multiple vehicles why the need for multiple AB coverages? Are they going to pay twice the AB if my AB on the motorcycle coverage runs out can I tap the AB component in my car policy after all it was an auto related claim?

Did you not read this thread before commenting?

[BlackMamba]

I'm new to insurance and don't even have a bike yet, but what about the following suggestion:

If you have 2 bikes and are the only one who'll be using any of them, couldn't you just insure 1 bike at a time? I don't know how it works when you sell a bike that you currently have insured right in the middle of your 12 month policy and then buy a different bike to takes its place, but if you don't need to then pay a completely new premium, couldn't you just make a quick phone call to your insurance company and switch the bikes on your policy? It sounds legit but I assume someone would have tried this already. If this is indeed fully legal, couldn't you rotate riding your bikes every week or month? Besides all the paperwork (which they'd just pass the cost to the policy owner), why would any insurance company even care, once a bike is no longer insured with them it's not their problem any more.

[adri]

I'd love to be able to transfer coverage from one bike to another weekly. I had my bike in the shop for almost a week. My 2 bikes are my only source of transportation but because of insurance rates I can only afford to have one on the road, so despite having a second road-worthy vehicle I was stuck taking the TTC.

[Grimmy]

In the UK, if you own more than one motorcycle, you pay a normal premium on the biggest or most expensive bike, and a minimalistic premium for the remaining bikes. Obviously because, you can only ride one bike at a time.

So if you had:
2002 GSXR-600
2005 Ducati Monster
2009 Yamaha R1
1984 Honda Scooter

Then you'd pay a normal premium on the Yamaha R1, and only couple hundred bucks a year for the remaining bikes.

[nobbie48]

Originally Posted by forexman
Ok so the Insurance company wants to cover its A** and charge liability on each policy that is understandable, but in a scenario where we have one operator with multiple vehicles why the need for multiple AB coverages? Are they going to pay twice the AB if my AB on the motorcycle coverage runs out can I tap the AB component in my car policy after all it was an auto related claim?

Did you not read this thread before commenting?

While we look at insurers as uncaring they are still trying to run their businesses and public opinion is a big factor in any business.

Assume someone has several cars but signs that he will be the only driver PERIOD. Theoretically if he loans a car or even lets someone else take the wheel for a few blocks he has broken the insurance contract and in the event of a collision the policy is void.

That could mean the injured party would have to sue the car owner. The insurance company would get bad press from the do-gooders that fail to recognize that the owner of the car is the bad guy, not the insurer.

Instead of getting the bad press the insurer settles and adds the amount to the premiums of the other drivers. Or they just say "We're avoiding the whole issue by charging you full hit on every vehicle." I suspect the later.

[adri]

In the UK, if you own more than one motorcycle, you pay a normal premium on the biggest or most expensive bike, and a minimalistic premium for the remaining bikes. Obviously because, you can only ride one bike at a time.

So if you had:
2002 GSXR-600
2005 Ducati Monster
2009 Yamaha R1
1984 Honda Scooter

Then you'd pay a normal premium on the Yamaha R1, and only couple hundred bucks a year for the remaining bikes.

Sounds great to me. Right now I can't even get one bike insured and only fire&theft on the other. I tried to find the logic but came up empty handed

[nesobriquet]

One of the better arguments posted. Here's a guy who gets it. For all those people who lie to their insurers about where they live, who drives their vehicles, what they use their vehicles for etc....Thanks, cause we all get surcharged to make up for the premiums you're not paying.

Crimestoppers, use it.

If you know someone who scratched their car all over to get a new paint job, or lied about what kind of golf clubs they had to get better ones from their insurer, exaggerated their injuries or whatever other scam they're pulling call crime stoppers. It's anonymous and much appreciated by those who work for insurers and spend their career trying to stop this kind of fraud.

How do we really know Crimestoppers is anonymous? I've often wondered that. Furthermore, for info on crimes that pay out a reward, how can you receive a reward, yet remain anonymous? Must be a simple thing here I am missing?

[adri]

How do we really know Crimestoppers is anonymous? I've often wondered that. Furthermore, for info on crimes that pay out a reward, how can you receive a reward, yet remain anonymous? Must be a simple thing here I am missing?

http://www.haltoncrimestoppers.com/H...0CS%20work.pdf

”When a tip is approved for a reward, we assign the tipster a fictitious name,” Phillips outlines. “The reward money is dropped off at a local business, in a sealed envelope, labeled with the ‘fictitious name’.” The tipster or their representative goes to the business and asks for the envelope. All businesses we use are well versed on how Crime Stoppers works - they do not ask for ID, just the assigned ‘name’.

I put up posters for these guys for community service hours when I was in highschool. It helped me get out of a suspension.
Anonymity is almost guaranteed since you can ask your cousin's boyfriend's dog walker's neighbour's step-brother to pick up your cash for you. Just gotta trust that person.

[BlackMamba]

Assume someone has several cars but signs that he will be the only driver PERIOD. Theoretically if he loans a car or even lets someone else take the wheel for a few blocks he has broken the insurance contract and in the event of a collision the policy is void.

That could mean the injured party would have to sue the car owner. The insurance company would get bad press from the do-gooders that fail to recognize that the owner of the car is the bad guy, not the insurer.

Instead of getting the bad press the insurer settles and adds the amount to the premiums of the other drivers. Or they just say "We're avoiding the whole issue by charging you full hit on every vehicle." I suspect the later.

Wouldn't this be no different for any lie on a policy? If they got in a collision with their blue car which they claimed was purplish red with fuscia polka dots, wouldn't an insurance company still have the right to void the contract and thus all that other stuff you mentioned takes place anyways. What's the difference with this situation?