Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

  1. #1

    Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Topic.

    I was thinking about this today. Ontario is one of the most, if not most period, expensive places to live for insurance in the world. And from what I've gathered, it's because the majority of Ontario citizens are little pussies that drain the living hell out of their insurance and claim "whiplash" at 1km/h crashes, then start fraud from there while screaming "AHHH I AM THE VICTIM".

    So after being in an 50% at fault accident where it cost the insurance dudes 3k to repair my RAV4 last year, and having paid almost 13,000 worth of insurance over the past 7 years to them, they've made a nice 10k profit on me. Why the **** am I getting the same increase as somebody who is 100% at fault, takes income replacement for a few months because they're a little girl, and goes into "rehab" without any broke bones.

    Why are insurance quotes not based on how much $$$$ you use? Why the **** are we stuck paying for others?

    /rant over

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia, came from Mississauga
    Posts
    20

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    2 reasons ..... 1) liability is the bigest hit you take on insurance . Thats the part that covers you for hurting someone....... 2) Ontario is the most populated place in Canada. So the chance of getting into a wreck is higher there then any wheres else ( save for B.C. where they drive at 299kph)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brampton
    Posts
    95

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    i like the idea that at-fault accidents go up the same rate regardless of whether you kill the other driver, or just scratch their bumper

    imagine if you killed the other driver? and your insurance quotes were rated based on how much your insurance company had to pay out?

    driving/riding on public roads will only be in your dreams

  4. #4
    Dresden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mississauga
    Posts
    253

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    Topic.

    I was thinking about this today. Ontario is one of the most, if not most period, expensive places to live for insurance in the world. And from what I've gathered, it's because the majority of Ontario citizens are little pussies that drain the living hell out of their insurance and claim "whiplash" at 1km/h crashes, then start fraud from there while screaming "AHHH I AM THE VICTIM".

    So after being in an 50% at fault accident where it cost the insurance dudes 3k to repair my RAV4 last year, and having paid almost 13,000 worth of insurance over the past 7 years to them, they've made a nice 10k profit on me. Why the **** am I getting the same increase as somebody who is 100% at fault, takes income replacement for a few months because they're a little girl, and goes into "rehab" without any broke bones.

    Why are insurance quotes not based on how much $$$$ you use? Why the **** are we stuck paying for others?

    /rant over
    If you are ever unfortunate enough to have a 'serious' accident resulting in medical claims, you will understand. The bills can get into the 6 & 7 figures depending on the severity.

    Medical treatment is very expensive, we just don't realize it in Canada since we are covered.
    Never to be taken seriously. Ever.

  5. #5

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dresden View Post
    If you are ever unfortunate enough to have a 'serious' accident resulting in medical claims, you will understand. The bills can get into the 6 & 7 figures depending on the severity.

    Medical treatment is very expensive, we just don't realize it in Canada since we are covered.
    I don't think any of you guys read my post.

    That is EXACTLY why quotes should be based on claim amounts including medical coverage. I've smashed my skull (TBI, fractured skull, had to drain blood from opening the skull, Google it, it was quite serious) before from riding a mountain bike. Took me 1 week to recovery. I took no painkillers, went straight back to school, wrote my exams, and started gym 2 weeks after while my skull wasn't fully healed. I don't expect every Ontario citizen to have the same willpower as me but I do not understand why the majority of innocent people who pay for insurance have to pay for everyone else who gets into an accident, and makes HUGE medical claims.

    Their rates should go up accordingly, that's all I'm saying.

    EDIT: Forgot to mention, I had the option of going into rehab because my arm was messed up, hearing treatment (left ear is deaf), and some other stuff. I rejected it all: mind over body. 6 years later I'm on a motorcycle. So no, I DON'T understand why the hell people need 6-7 digits for medical claims when you can just drop some balls and keep going at your life normally.

    Did I forget to mention that I was severely depressed for a good 2 months and failed my first set of midterms because of the TBI? I was suggested professional counseling (shrink); I said hell no and kept going about my own business.
    Last edited by 油井緋色; 04-20-2012 at 09:57 AM.

  6. #6
    VifferFun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West of Toronto
    Posts
    7,486

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    Topic.

    I was thinking about this today. Ontario is one of the most, if not most period, expensive places to live for insurance in the world. And from what I've gathered, it's because the majority of Ontario citizens are little pussies that drain the living hell out of their insurance and claim "whiplash" at 1km/h crashes, then start fraud from there while screaming "AHHH I AM THE VICTIM".

    So after being in an 50% at fault accident where it cost the insurance dudes 3k to repair my RAV4 last year, and having paid almost 13,000 worth of insurance over the past 7 years to them, they've made a nice 10k profit on me. Why the **** am I getting the same increase as somebody who is 100% at fault, takes income replacement for a few months because they're a little girl, and goes into "rehab" without any broke bones.

    Why are insurance quotes not based on how much $$$$ you use? Why the **** are we stuck paying for others?

    /rant over
    The point of insurance is that we take relatively small amounts of money from many people to pay out the huge claims of the few. No one thinks they will need to make a $1,000,000 claim until it happens. If you think of it a little, if the premiums varied by the amount that you claimed, then essentially this is a situation without insurance. You rate would be nearly $0 until you make a claim, at which point your premium jumps up to $50,000+ a year (i.e. you can no longer drive).
    I'm an Actuarial Analyst for a Major Canadian Insurance Company. I analyse claims patterns to determine overall rate changes, as well as relative premium differences by various risk characteristics (eg. age, experience, claims, convictions, usage, etc.)

    Unless it's private, please post insurance-related questions in the forum rather than sending me a PM.

    Current: 2001 Suzuki GSXR1000 (4th Season)
    Previous: 1996 Honda VFR750F (4 Seasons)
    Previous: 1998 Kawasaki Ninja EX250 (3 Seasons)

  7. #7
    Dresden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mississauga
    Posts
    253

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    I don't think any of you guys read my post.

    That is EXACTLY why quotes should be based on claim amounts including medical coverage. I've smashed my skull (TBI, fractured skull, had to drain blood from opening the skull, Google it, it was quite serious) before from riding a mountain bike. Took me 1 week to recovery. I took no painkillers, went straight back to school, wrote my exams, and started gym 2 weeks after while my skull wasn't fully healed. I don't expect every Ontario citizen to have the same willpower as me but I do not understand why the majority of innocent people who pay for insurance have to pay for everyone else who gets into an accident, and makes HUGE medical claims.

    Their rates should go up accordingly, that's all I'm saying.

    EDIT: Forgot to mention, I had the option of going into rehab because my arm was messed up, hearing treatment (left ear is deaf), and some other stuff. I rejected it all: mind over body. 6 years later I'm on a motorcycle. So no, I DON'T understand why the hell people need 6-7 digits for medical claims when you can just drop some balls and keep going at your life normally.

    Did I forget to mention that I was severely depressed for a good 2 months and failed my first set of midterms because of the TBI? I was suggested professional counseling (shrink); I said hell no and kept going about my own business.
    I did read your post, and perhaps you should re-think your position.

    Your theory leaves no affordable way for individuals with a "high-claim" to be insured. The common denominator for an insurance company is to charge adjusted premiums across the board to afford claims, and make $. Which is why they bump people with bad driving records, or high claims.

    Your story is irrelevant. And quite frankly, if I were in your situation I would have taken all the care available to me under the govt's coin.. thats what its there for!


    Trying to hard to be an outlier is not going to get you anywhere.
    Never to be taken seriously. Ever.

  8. #8

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dresden View Post
    I did read your post, and perhaps you should re-think your position.

    Your theory leaves no affordable way for individuals with a "high-claim" to be insured. The common denominator for an insurance company is to charge adjusted premiums across the board to afford claims, and make $. Which is why they bump people with bad driving records, or high claims.

    Your story is irrelevant. And quite frankly, if I were in your situation I would have taken all the care available to me under the govt's coin.. thats what its there for!


    Trying to hard to be an outlier is not going to get you anywhere.
    ...I guess Canada is a country where the weak expect to be carried by the strong?

    EDIT: And it's "Trying to hard to be an outlier is not going to get you anywhere." kinda of attitude that is making Canada choke on itself. Take aid when you absolutely need it (ie, I'm not gonan cut open my skull myself and drain the blood out if I'm unconscious). Do not take aid when your willpower alone can get you through it: people don't work out, run Tough Mudder, or race for fun to "get anywhere". They want to prove to themselves and the people around them that they aren't little pussies; you don't get anywhere from not being a pussy. You just get stronger.
    Last edited by 油井緋色; 04-20-2012 at 05:46 PM.

  9. #9
    RetroGrouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    City of bad drivers, Toronto
    Posts
    6,423

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Best way to pay less insurance: grow older and don't hit anyone. Worked for me like a charm.
    "I got a new spleen from a guy who liked to ride motorcycles". Fry, Futurama



    My bike is a video star! youtube.com/watch?v=Ju9caIDWQ40

  10. #10

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    ...I guess Canada is a country where the weak expect to be carried by the strong?
    You're just figuring this out? I suggest you eat your grandparents because they're sucking the system dry!!
    "We must make an idol of our fear, and call it god." - Antonius Block

  11. #11

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by VifferFun View Post
    The point of insurance is that we take relatively small amounts of money from many people to pay out the huge claims of the few. No one thinks they will need to make a $1,000,000 claim until it happens. If you think of it a little, if the premiums varied by the amount that you claimed, then essentially this is a situation without insurance. You rate would be nearly $0 until you make a claim, at which point your premium jumps up to $50,000+ a year (i.e. you can no longer drive).
    Are you sure it isn't the same people constantly making million dollar claims?

    I find it kinda fishy that our insurance is so ridiculously high compared to other areas. I'm just whining; I plan to move to silicon valley when I finish my degree due to job demands (plus there are A LOT more riders there) but still gotta deal w/ this insurance crap here for 4-8 years.

  12. #12

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by RetroGrouch View Post
    Best way to pay less insurance: grow older and don't hit anyone. Worked for me like a charm.
    Still pay 2-10x more than many other countries.

  13. #13

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    Still pay 2-10x more than many other countries.
    Any idea what the difference in coverage is?
    "We must make an idol of our fear, and call it god." - Antonius Block

  14. #14
    VifferFun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West of Toronto
    Posts
    7,486

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    Are you sure it isn't the same people constantly making million dollar claims?
    The chance of making multiple $1M+ claim in your lifetime is slightly higher than winning multiple huge lotteries in your lifetime (i.e. very remote).
    I'm an Actuarial Analyst for a Major Canadian Insurance Company. I analyse claims patterns to determine overall rate changes, as well as relative premium differences by various risk characteristics (eg. age, experience, claims, convictions, usage, etc.)

    Unless it's private, please post insurance-related questions in the forum rather than sending me a PM.

    Current: 2001 Suzuki GSXR1000 (4th Season)
    Previous: 1996 Honda VFR750F (4 Seasons)
    Previous: 1998 Kawasaki Ninja EX250 (3 Seasons)

  15. #15

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    if I had to pay based on the damage i caused.. why would I buy insurance? I should just pay out every claim myself.
    This post does not provide any legal advice and readers should consult with their own lawyer for legal advice.

  16. #16

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    I was thinking about this today.

    ...

    Why are insurance quotes not based on how much $$$$ you use?
    Think harder!
    There is no planet B.

  17. #17
    Dresden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mississauga
    Posts
    253

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    ...I guess Canada is a country where the weak expect to be carried by the strong?

    EDIT: And it's "Trying to hard to be an outlier is not going to get you anywhere." kinda of attitude that is making Canada choke on itself. Take aid when you absolutely need it (ie, I'm not gonan cut open my skull myself and drain the blood out if I'm unconscious). Do not take aid when your willpower alone can get you through it: people don't work out, run Tough Mudder, or race for fun to "get anywhere". They want to prove to themselves and the people around them that they aren't little pussies; you don't get anywhere from not being a pussy. You just get stronger.
    Totally irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by fastar1 View Post
    Think harder!
    +1

    If you don't like the system, use your voting power to change it (or gather enough support to run yourself).

    Hipster protests (i.e. Point, click, e-rants) don't go anywhere. See Kony 2012 for proof.
    Never to be taken seriously. Ever.

  18. #18
    VifferFun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West of Toronto
    Posts
    7,486

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dresden View Post
    +1

    If you don't like the system, use your voting power to change it (or gather enough support to run yourself).

    Hipster protests (i.e. Point, click, e-rants) don't go anywhere. See Kony 2012 for proof.
    Not sure what you're talking about -- that has nothing to do with fastar1's post.
    I'm an Actuarial Analyst for a Major Canadian Insurance Company. I analyse claims patterns to determine overall rate changes, as well as relative premium differences by various risk characteristics (eg. age, experience, claims, convictions, usage, etc.)

    Unless it's private, please post insurance-related questions in the forum rather than sending me a PM.

    Current: 2001 Suzuki GSXR1000 (4th Season)
    Previous: 1996 Honda VFR750F (4 Seasons)
    Previous: 1998 Kawasaki Ninja EX250 (3 Seasons)

  19. #19

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 油井緋色 View Post
    Still pay 2-10x more than many other countries.
    What countries have you got quotes for? Revrandy just came back from California and his insurance is cheaper in Ontario.

    As an Aside, I had an offer in Silicon Valkey last year (Palo Alto), you might want to check what rent costs there!! The average house price is $1.6 million.

  20. #20

    Re: Why are insurance quotes not based on at fault claim amounts?

    I remember thinking similar questions many moons ago after a 0% fault claim.

    The short answer is that your insurance rate has nothing to do with how much you have put in, or taken out of some mythical kitty in the past. The fact that you have made a claim, statistically speaking, says that you are more likely to make one in the future so you get packaged into a rate group with riskier/worse/whatever people.

    Sure, it sucks that rates can't be based on how defensively you drive, deep knowledge of traffic patterns, fitness, ability to heal, ability to minimize personal injury with cat like reflexes, instincts to reduce property damage during a collision, and so on and so forth... They just go with what they can see on paper. Of course, they also don't know much about the other party who may be involved in a theoretical future claim, just that it will more likely be in your territory, and statistically like past claims in that territory.

    Personally, I think anyone who has made a claim will learn from the experience and get better, but I'm probably just projecting.
    --
    Killing you and giving you good advice aren't mutually exclusive.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •