Motorcycle Insurance in Ontario is racketeering

[seame]

Third party liability coverage covers YOU. It covers other people's property if, and only if, they sue you for damages as a result of an incident. The rest of the coverage is attributed to your personal being, and coverage for your vehicle if you are not at fault in an accident. I can send you a copy of the Ontario Automobile Policy if you'd like, and we can discuss it if you have questions regarding the coverage.

Better yet, here is a link to the policy (click on the latest version -2007 I believe)...
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/ENGLISH/in...e/auto/OAP.asp

I am not an insurance insider, so I don't know all of the details, but common sense tells me most of my property damage is covered by my collision/comprehensive insurance, or by another at fault driver (of course people always sue, if that what it takes to get the at fault driver to pay up). Effectively, if you don't have collision, and you are at fault, you are not covered for your property damage. If you don't have collision, and it's the other driver's fault, you sue. In neither case is your insurance company on the hook for your property damage. Otherwise why would I pay for collision/comprehensive if I was covered anyway?

If there are other costs (ie health care, income loss), I can see my insurance paying for that. However, my common sense also tells me, that since these coverages are independant of my car's value (only the safety of the model should come into play, but the newer car is safer than the older car, therefore should be cheaper, not more expensive), I still don't see why my basic insurance should almost double for a switch from one model to another in the same category.

By the way. I talked to my broker at the time. He said the only reason my insurance went up was because Civics are rated a higher risk (because of past claims), than Sentras. He admitted there was no other reason, other than the claims history of the model.

SeaMe

[seame]

Done. Again, you dont give exact models for either Civic or Sentra OR years for either. So I used:

2004 Civic 4Dr DX
2004 Sentra 1.8 4DR

I used my home postal code (live just east of Oshawa). I said I drive each car 15,000Km / year for personal use, 10Km to work.

Best price was Bellair direct:
2004 Civic 4Dr DX: $90.92/mo
2004 Sentra 1.8 4DR: 93.83

Worst was RBC:
Civic 148.41/mo
Sentra: 150.58/mo

I'm actually surprised that the Civic was cheaper than the sentra in both, but woo, 3 whole dollars a month. Viffer's going to have to change from dollar stuffed mattresses to Loonie stuffed mattresses soon... won't be as comfortable

Oh, I should mention I'm not in the insurance industry.

I am surprised that they are virtually identical, since the quotes are always very different for the two models for me. The only difference is my age/driving record, and the years of the cars (from 1990 Sentra to a 2001 Civic). If the Civic has a higher claims rate, it should not have a lower premium.

SeaMe

[Avi Singh]

If you don't have collision, and it's the other driver's fault, you sue.

You can not sue for this. Coverage is available to you under the direct compensation property damage section of your policy. You can not sue for this. Just a heads up...

[misteral]

I am surprised that they are virtually identical, since the quotes are always very different for the two models for me. The only difference is my age/driving record, and the years of the cars (from 1990 Sentra to a 2001 Civic). If the Civic has a higher claims rate, it should not have a lower premium.

SeaMe

Dude... those 2 cars are 11 years difference! You're surprised the premium changed?

[seame]

You can not sue for this. Coverage is available to you, it is optional coverage, and you chose not to purchase it. The courts will not rule in favour of this. Just a heads up...

If someone runs into the back of my vehicle while I am stopped at an intersection (so it is clearly his "fault"), I cannot recover the damage to my property, unless I have the right insurance. That makes no sense.

If the rule is as you say, then it proves my point that insurance companies are acting in their own interests, not the interests of the consumer (you can't seriously argue that someone who is in a collision, who wasn't at fault should bear some of the financial burden, ie "punish the victim").

Anyway, I have stated my opinion (Insurance companies in Canada are non-competitive beaurocracies, that act mostly in the interests of the people that work in the industry, rather than the consumers. Additional competition would improve the situation.) You can disagree, but it is well known that consumers do not get the same service for cost from companies in oligopolistic industries (Canadian Banks, Canadian Oil Companies, Canadian Insurance companies).

Anyway, I have responded enough to this particular thread. Let the consumers decide if they are getting value for their premiums.

SeaMe

[seame]

Dude... those 2 cars are 11 years difference! You're surprised the premium changed?

I don't have coverage for my property (comprehensive/collision), why should the older/less safe car cost WAY less?

SeaMe

[peanut butter]

I am not an insurance insider, so I don't know all of the details, but common sense tells me most of my property damage is covered by my collision/comprehensive insurance, or by another at fault driver (of course people always sue, if that what it takes to get the at fault driver to pay up). Effectively, if you don't have collision, and you are at fault, you are not covered for your property damage. If you don't have collision, and it's the other driver's fault, you sue. In neither case is your insurance company on the hook for your property damage. Otherwise why would I pay for collision/comprehensive if I was covered anyway?

If there are other costs (ie health care, income loss), I can see my insurance paying for that. However, my common sense also tells me, that since these coverages are independant of my car's value (only the safety of the model should come into play, but the newer car is safer than the older car, therefore should be cheaper, not more expensive), I still don't see why my basic insurance should almost double for a switch from one model to another in the same category.

Perhaps this is your area of confusion. In Ontario, property damage coverage applies as so (simplified):

If you have Collison/Comp coverage - your carrier pays your loss.
If you are not at fault, Direct Compensation Property Damages applies - your carrier pays you loss.
Your carrier does not recover from the at fault party (or carrier) unless the party does not carry a valid policy or the party/carrier is from another jurisdiction.
If you are at fault and carry the minimum coverage in Ontario, you will not be dragged into court to defend against damages that you have caused.

Injuries are a whole other bowl of bananas but Accident Benefits are often the most significant portion of a claim.
This is where your liability limits may be looked at, as an injured party can initiate a tort action against you. This is where your $1 million liability may save your ***.

Your vehicle is a relatively fixed value and the loss can be more accurately determined and be quite honest is a minor value at the end of the day.
Injuries and rehabilitation less so...

The short of this is that we pay through the nose for it, but we have access to excellent protection from personal financial ruin due to an at fault loss in which you are liable.

[VifferFun]

You have spent the whole day monitoring and doing public relations on an internet forum. I am sure the consumers are getting their moneys worth from your salary.

The consumers are getting a real bargain, because I'm on vacation today.

[VifferFun]

I suggest that the people who don't believe me, check the online quotes for yourselves (the rate change won't be exactly the same for you, but it would be educational). I don't remember which I checked online, and which I checked by phone, but the result was always the same (TD Insurance/Caa,...).

Perhaps I was jumping the gun by stating that there was NO WAY your premium would increase that much by the switch. Let's just assume that you are correct for now until I return to work, and I will check out the vehicle rate groups on the two vehicles for you. Send me the exact Year, make, and models by PM and I will try and check it out.

[peanut butter]

The consumers are getting a real bargain, because I'm on vacation today.

Should have been riding then!

[VifferFun]

Again this arrogant attitude that I am a stupid consumer that doesn't have common sense as to what is legitimate or not. If the claim was legitimately rejected in the first place, it would not have been changed twice (accepting claims that had been previously rejected).

Yes, I am an arrogant prick who goes out of my way in forums to try and feed people misinformation. This is why people hate me on the forums.

You are again suggesting that I am stupid (along with "many Canadians"), and making unreasonable complaints. It's this arrogant attitude that you only get in government, and Oligopolistic industries that are uncompetitive. Consumers are a heck of a lot smarter than you think. I am not a "conspiracy theorist", or socialist" "who thinks the government should run things". I believe in COMPETITION. That is where the consumer gets the best deal (unlike our banking/oil, or insurance industries).

I'm not trying to imply that YOU are stupid, and I'm sorry if I came across that way; however, I don't think that many people will argue that, in general, the North American population IS ignorant when it comes to certain topics (i.e. taxes, insurance, etc.). The ignorance is not necessarily of their own fault; the insurance industry doesn't do a god job of educating people in my opinion.

[Avi Singh]

Perhaps I was jumping the gun by stating that there was NO WAY your premium would increase that much by the switch. Let's just assume that you are correct for now until I return to work, and I will check out the vehicle rate groups on the two vehicles for you. Send me the exact Year, make, and models by PM and I will try and check it out.

Are you using CLEAR rate groups? If so a standard 1990 Sentra is Rate Group 1 or 2 (I only have up to 92 at home, and it's a 2). A standard 4 dr 2001 Civic is Rate Group 18.

[VifferFun]

I am surprised that they are virtually identical, since the quotes are always very different for the two models for me. The only difference is my age/driving record, and the years of the cars (from 1990 Sentra to a 2001 Civic). If the Civic has a higher claims rate, it should not have a lower premium.

SeaMe

I will help you out by looking up the Vehicle Rate Groups on these two vehicles. It is possible that the Sentra has a very good AB claims history. YES, not only Collision and Comprehensive are affected by the car you drive. Also affected are Accident Benefits and DCPD. If what you are saying is correct, I am guessing that the Sentra claims experience rates the Sentra as 1/5 for AB (best) where as the Civic is 5/5 (worst).

[VifferFun]

Are you using CLEAR rate groups? If so a standard 1990 Sentra is Rate Group 1 or 2 (I only have up to 92 at home, and it's a 2). A standard 4 dr 2001 Civic is Rate Group 18.

Yes, I am referring to CLEAR. What is the CLEAR rate groups for AB on the two cars that SeaMe is referring to?

[VifferFun]

You can not sue for this. Coverage is available to you, it is optional coverage, and you chose not to purchase it. The courts will not rule in favour of this. Just a heads up...

If you don't have Collision and it is the other driver's fault, you are covered under DCPD (which is mandatory in Ontario).

[Avi Singh]

If you don't have Collision and it is the other driver's fault, you are covered under DCPD (which is mandatory in Ontario).

I thought I read him saying, if you don't have collision and it's the other driver's fault, he'd sue.

[Avi Singh]

If someone runs into the back of my vehicle while I am stopped at an intersection (so it is clearly his "fault"), I cannot recover the damage to my property, unless I have the right insurance. That makes no sense.

If the rule is as you say, then it proves my point that insurance companies are acting in their own interests, not the interests of the consumer (you can't seriously argue that someone who is in a collision, who wasn't at fault should bear some of the financial burden, ie "punish the victim").

Anyway, I have stated my opinion (Insurance companies in Canada are non-competitive beaurocracies, that act mostly in the interests of the people that work in the industry, rather than the consumers. Additional competition would improve the situation.) You can disagree, but it is well known that consumers do not get the same service for cost from companies in oligopolistic industries (Canadian Banks, Canadian Oil Companies, Canadian Insurance companies).

Anyway, I have responded enough to this particular thread. Let the consumers decide if they are getting value for their premiums.

SeaMe

I corrected my post. What I was meaning to say to you is you can not sue for the damages to your vehicle if you are not at fault. Your insurance company will cover you. I sent you the link to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Policy. I suggest you read it, and we can discuss the coverages.

[VifferFun]

If someone runs into the back of my vehicle while I am stopped at an intersection (so it is clearly his "fault"), I cannot recover the damage to my property, unless I have the right insurance. That makes no sense.

If the rule is as you say, then it proves my point that insurance companies are acting in their own interests, not the interests of the consumer (you can't seriously argue that someone who is in a collision, who wasn't at fault should bear some of the financial burden, ie "punish the victim").

You ARE covered, under DCPD which is a mandatory coverage in Ontario.

Anyway, I have stated my opinion (Insurance companies in Canada are non-competitive beaurocracies, that act mostly in the interests of the people that work in the industry, rather than the consumers. Additional competition would improve the situation.) You can disagree, but it is well known that consumers do not get the same service for cost from companies in oligopolistic industries (Canadian Banks, Canadian Oil Companies, Canadian Insurance companies).

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether they are correct or incorrect. You don't seem to listen when people try to explain things o you though. Why do you think there is no competition in Ontario insurance? I have already posted a link that lists the insurance companies licensed to sell in Ontario. There are HUNDREDS. Spouting off incorrect statements as if they are fact does not lend credible to your "arguments". Also, making statements such as "it is well known that . . ." is not proof of anything.

[QUOTE[Anyway, I have responded enough to this particular thread. Let the consumers decide if they are getting value for their premiums.[/QUOTE]

Feel free to invest in the insurance industry, because we are making boatloads of risk-free income right now. (NO ONE has ever been able to explain why they wouldn't invest in their life savings in the insurance industry, if the insurance industry is so good at making profit. NOT ONE.)

[Avi Singh]

I don't have coverage for my property (comprehensive/collision), why should the older/less safe car cost WAY less?

SeaMe

Yes you do. It is afforded to you under the Direct Compensation Property Damage section of the policy. Here is a .pdf version. Read the policy that you purchased and then we can discuss what it covers properly.

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/English/fo...23-10-2006.pdf

[VifferFun]

Should have been riding then!

My bike is still in my hometown because I store it there over winter I need to get my brother-in-law to give me a ride there so that I can have both my car and my bike in my working city.