Convictions on insurance record

[KrazyBones]

Hi guys,

I always thought that tickets stay on your driving record for 3 years from the date of the conviction. My broker says that it stays 3 years from when your insurance renews and they start charging you for it. So if you get a ticket in may but insurance doesn't renew until September... you ill be charged 3 years until September?

Can anyone confirm this, seems fishy to me.

[toysareforboys]

Hi guys,

I always thought that tickets stay on your driving record for 3 years from the date of the conviction. My broker says that it stays 3 years from when your insurance renews and they start charging you for it. So if you get a ticket in may but insurance doesn't renew until September... you ill be charged 3 years until September?

Can anyone confirm this, seems fishy to me.

They only pull your record when they renew your policy. If your ticket comes off mid year you'll be paying the higher price for the entire year. But on the next renewal you'll be golden.

If your insurance renews after the ticket has came off (3 years from the date of the conviction) there is absolutely no way they will charge you for the ticket as it's no longer on your abstract.

What company you with?

-Jamie M.

[Kedo]

Hi guys,

I always thought that tickets stay on your driving record for 3 years from the date of the conviction. My broker says that it stays 3 years from when your insurance renews and they start charging you for it. So if you get a ticket in may but insurance doesn't renew until September... you ill be charged 3 years until September?

Can anyone confirm this, seems fishy to me.

The conviction remains on your abstract for three years from the date of conviction (not offence date).

[VifferFun]

Your MTO abstract updates in real time, but your convictions history used by the insurer for rating doesn't change until renewal. Your MTO abstract will clear you conviction three years after the date of conviction OR the date you were proven guilty in court (whichever comes latest).

[AF4iK]

3 years from date of conviction. I know because for the last 5 years or so I've consistently maxed out my 2 minor-tickets allowance and juggled a third in the court system. By the time renewal comes around, one ticket has fallen off my abstract while another has been added, once again giving me room to juggle a third ticket. If you're not sure when your tickets fall off your record just call up your insurer and ask.

[KrazyBones]

I will get my abstract and make sure everything is legit.

[toysareforboys]

I will get my abstract and make sure everything is legit.

When you get it post it (edit out your info) and we can compare abstracts I have one that's 8 pages long from way back when

-Jamie M.

[GateKeeper]

It goes like this....

My last ticket expires June 10 this year, that is 3 years to the day of conviction, my renewal on my insurance is May 6th of this year,,,,guess what, ticket will still be counted against me and will not drop off until May 6th of 2013.......so I get to pay higher premiums for an extra year, I asked and they will not take the conviction off my insurance even though it's only a month after renewal

Bloody Extortionists.......these insurance companies are....

the only justice in this scenario is, they didn't know about the ticket for the first 2 years, no checks by them as nothing changed, so I guess sometimes the little guy sticks it to them as well..............

next time you get a ticket (minor) and it's reduced, and your told " I am being nice, I reduced it, no points just a fine" ya right,,,,yes your going to pay the ticket amount, but your also going to pay higher premiums for the next 3 years, how do they justify (insurance companies) making me pay for something for 3 years......this includes seatbelt tickets, failure to provide necessary documents, and any and all small so called tickets......

[VifferFun]

It goes like this....

My last ticket expires June 10 this year, that is 3 years to the day of conviction, my renewal on my insurance is May 6th of this year,,,,guess what, ticket will still be counted against me and will not drop off until May 6th of 2013.......so I get to pay higher premiums for an extra year, I asked and they will not take the conviction off my insurance even though it's only a month after renewal

Bloody Extortionists.......these insurance companies are....

the only justice in this scenario is, they didn't know about the ticket for the first 2 years, no checks by them as nothing changed, so I guess sometimes the little guy sticks it to them as well..............

It's not extortion -- you'll be surcharged for three full calendar years as a result of a conviction. Yes, you must pay the surcharged rate until the end of your next policy year, but don't forget that you had 11MO with a conviction record in 2009 where you weren't being surcharged. Since people's record generally improve over time, this actually works to your benefit (since your surcharge is essentially shifting from Policy Year 1 to Policy Year 4 where your premium, and hence surcharge, is probably lower). Also, you have the advantage where you can simply cancel your policy on 2012-06-10 and switch to a different insurer where you won't be surcharged.

Using your situation as an example, here's a timeline of events:

Policy Year 1 (2009-05-06 to 2010-05-05) -- NO SURCHARGE
2009-05-06: Purchased Insurance policy
2009-06-10: Received Conviction but no surcharge applied yet

Policy Year 2 (2010-05-06 to 2011-05-05) -- SURCHARGED
2010-05-06: Insurance Policy Renews with Surcharge

Policy Year 3 (2011-05-06 to 2012-05-05) -- SURCHARGED
2011-05-06: Insurance Policy Renews with Surcharge

Policy Year 4 (2012-05-06 to 2013-05-05) -- SURCHARGED
2012-05-06: Insurance Policy Renews with Surcharge
2012-06-10: Conviction drops off record but surcharge remains applied for the year

Policy Year 5 (2013-05-06 to 2014-05-05) -- NO SURCHARGE
2013-05-06: Insurance Policy Renews without Surcharges

[VifferFun]

next time you get a ticket (minor) and it's reduced, and your told " I am being nice, I reduced it, no points just a fine" ya right,,,,yes your going to pay the ticket amount, but your also going to pay higher premiums for the next 3 years, how do they justify (insurance companies) making me pay for something for 3 years......this includes seatbelt tickets, failure to provide necessary documents, and any and all small so called tickets......

This is correct -- a minor conviction is a minor conviction, regardless of points.

In my opinion, seatbelt convictions should get a DOUBLE surcharge. It's just plain stupid to drive without your seatbelt, and you're actually exposing your insurer to huge risk. Without a seatbelt, even a minor collision can result in severe injuries when your head bounces off the steering wheel or you superman out your front windshield.

[Baggsy]

Hey, can you ask them to lower my premiums by the same amount over that time period since I have no tickets?

[GateKeeper]

Yes I see your with the Insurance industry, and I get where your coming from, but to me, the Insurance industry are nothing but extortionists...

you tell me, how it's fair and acceptable, that when I get a ticket for no seat belt for instance, and I pay my fine, the insurance company has the right to increase my rates and make me pay for this ticket for another 3 years in the form of increased premiums....

I am sure I am a real menace on the road because I got caught without my seat belt on......or a failure to produce papers for the car, because I just got a new set of them and left them on the kitchen table, or I get stopped and told I am speeding, but I will reduce the ticket to the bare minimum, pay the 30 bucks, but hey no points as I am being nice to you

but the Insurance Companies, ding me for 3 years

how do you guys explain, the fact I am going to pay 600 bucks a year on a bike, but if my son who just started riding is going to pay 3000 a year, and not just him but me as well.......why the 2400 dollar increase to me ?

and so on

[GateKeeper]

This is correct -- a minor conviction is a minor conviction, regardless of points.

In my opinion, seatbelt convictions should get a DOUBLE surcharge. It's just plain stupid to drive without your seatbelt, and you're actually exposing your insurer to huge risk. Without a seatbelt, even a minor collision can result in severe injuries when your head bounces off the steering wheel or you superman out your front windshield.

There are pro's and con's to the seatbelt theory.....so let's not even go there

[toysareforboys]

I am sure I am a real menace

It's a risk factor thing. Remember they are insuring YOU and YOUR safety and YOUR health. Not wearing a seatbelt could result in huge out of pocket expenses for the insurance company. Higher risk = higher penalty until they think you are "rehabilitated" i.e. 3 years.

The no documents thing though, for SURE I don't think it's right that it counts against your driving record.

I had 26 convictions on my record at one point, some were for stuff like that, no insurance/ownership papers, etc.

A better question would be, why does your seatbelt infraction cost you on your motorcycle only policy? lol

-Jamie M.

[VifferFun]

Yes I see your with the Insurance industry, and I get where your coming from, but to me, the Insurance industry are nothing but extortionists...

you tell me, how it's fair and acceptable, that when I get a ticket for no seat belt for instance, and I pay my fine, the insurance company has the right to increase my rates and make me pay for this ticket for another 3 years in the form of increased premiums....

I am sure I am a real menace on the road because I got caught without my seat belt on......or a failure to produce papers for the car, because I just got a new set of them and left them on the kitchen table, or I get stopped and told I am speeding, but I will reduce the ticket to the bare minimum, pay the 30 bucks, but hey no points as I am being nice to you

but the Insurance Companies, ding me for 3 years

In short, we couldn't care less about what the Ministry does with you -- the money the MTO collects in convictions doesn't go to the insurance industry. All we care about is the risk you pose to our company. A person with convictions is more likely to be involved in a future at-fault collision than someone who is conviction free. We calculate your premium based on your expected future loss. If you have a conviction, then your expected future loss increases, and so does your premium. This is similar to a bank offering a loan at a higher interest rate to someone with poor credit versus someone impeccable credit (since the poor-credit applicant is more likely to default).

I'm not sure about other insurer, but my employer doesn't surcharge if you simply don't have your papers with you.

how do you guys explain, the fact I am going to pay 600 bucks a year on a bike, but if my son who just started riding is going to pay 3000 a year, and not just him but me as well.......why the 2400 dollar increase to me ?

and so on

Your son is a young male, and statistically their group is a very high risk. Your son pays $3000/yr because we expect him to claim $3000/yr. Your guesses are as good as mine for the reasons that young males are involved in many at-faults, but the likely causes are the deadly combination of inexperience and immaturity.

[GateKeeper]

In short, we couldn't care less about what the Ministry does with you -- the money the MTO collects in convictions doesn't go to the insurance industry. All we care about is the risk you pose to our company. A person with convictions is more likely to be involved in a future at-fault collision than someone who is conviction free. We calculate your premium based on your expected future loss. If you have a conviction, then your expected future loss increases, and so does your premium. This is similar to a bank offering a loan at a higher interest rate to someone with poor credit versus someone impeccable credit (since the poor-credit applicant is more likely to default).

I'm not sure about other insurer, but my employer doesn't surcharge if you simply don't have your papers with you.




Your son is a young male, and statistically their group is a very high risk. Your son pays $3000/yr because we expect him to claim $3000/yr. Your guesses are as good as mine for the reasons that young males are involved in many at-faults, but the likely causes are the deadly combination of inexperience and immaturity.

Exactly the insurance companies only look at their pocket book, nothing else, if you didn't then a seat belt ticket wouldn't and shouldn't have any effect on premiums, if you don't like that one, then lets go for any other conviction, like failure to have papers on person

and you tell me why my son should pay the 3000 bucks a year, young, no experience, and all that stuff, but what you didn't tell me is why is my rate is right up there with his......? why am I dinged the same.......I am not young, inexperienced, but you insure all riders the same amount based on the worse case.......even if there were 4 of in the house, all would pay the 3000 a year, because of the newest rider.........

that right there is wrong...............as I said Insurance companies are nothing short of legal extortionists...............

[Corey McNeely]

What are you expecting the insurance company to look out for?? They have to look at the expected future costs, that is the whole premise of insurance. Insurance is no different then any other business you buy a product or service from. You think it cost Tim's $1.50 to make that coffee???? You think the tickets don't effect government run insurance, come on..

Do you even read the replies to your post. Viffer actually explained the reason for the increase with regards to having no seatbelt and also advised that some companies do not surcharge for failure to show insurance card.

[Kedo]

In short, we couldn't care less about what the Ministry does with you -- the money the MTO collects in convictions doesn't go to the insurance industry. All we care about is the risk you pose to our company. A person with convictions is more likely to be involved in a future at-fault collision than someone who is conviction free. We calculate your premium based on your expected future loss. If you have a conviction, then your expected future loss increases, and so does your premium. This is similar to a bank offering a loan at a higher interest rate to someone with poor credit versus someone impeccable credit (since the poor-credit applicant is more likely to default).

Viffer, I understand most of your logic and find you very informative and although I don't necessarily agree with it, unfortunately it is the way the insurance industry operates.
As far as not caring, they should and that is the point I believe. It should be 3 years from date of conviction as that is the date that matters not renewal.
If the MTO removes it from their records so should the insurer. Is the policy not based on the driving record which is held by the ministry? Did they not change the policy based on the conviction of the MTO record?. Yes they did so they cared about that, did they not.
Why would they not also remove it at 3 years other than they could capture additional revenue.

If they want to be transparent and not appear to be extortionists (they kind of are as you cant drive without insurance so its not really an option and why some people have to pay ridiculous amounts) they should just change it so all convictions stay on you file for 4 years to ensure it clears the policy renewal date. To gouge for the sake of a month is just wrong I am sorry. I am well aware of insurance fraud and other factors as I have many friends in the industry but this is all about the revenue unfortunately.

-1

[macrider]

I am 99% sure this is a young male.
And you wonder why their insurance is so high.
Until the immaturity and stupidity go away this is what insurance companies see and the aftermath if he crashes.
This video was posted on another thread in case you missed it.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...3.html#more-id

[GateKeeper]

What are you expecting the insurance company to look out for?? They have to look at the expected future costs, that is the whole premise of insurance. Insurance is no different then any other business you buy a product or service from. You think it cost Tim's $1.50 to make that coffee???? You think the tickets don't effect government run insurance, come on..

Do you even read the replies to your post. Viffer actually explained the reason for the increase with regards to having no seatbelt and also advised that some companies do not surcharge for failure to show insurance card.

go price insurance in other provinces and then, come back and tell me what you think about our insurance rates here in Ontario

I read what is replied, and it's the same crap they have been spewing for years

and like I said if you don't want to use the seatbelt one, pick any other, no front plate, tint is too dark, and the list can go on