One rider, multiple bike Riders Plus POV | GTAMotorcycle.com

One rider, multiple bike Riders Plus POV

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The article below is from their newsletter.

"SUMMARY:

A lot of motorcycle riders in Ontario own more than one motorcycle. The biggest bee in their bonnets is the fact that they have to pay the full insurance premium on each bike - less a multibike discount of perhaps ten percent - if they want to ride all of the bikes interchangeably. They don't want to call in to their insurance broker to switch bikes every couple of days, for example. So why do they have to pay what amounts to almost double or triple the premium when, as they all so eloquently put it, they can only ride one bike at a time?

Let's start by clarifying what insurance companies can and cannot do. Motorcycle insurance policies are contracts. The terms of the contract are either regulated by law and universally applicable to all Ontario policyholders, or are specifically approved by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario to be applied in specific circumstances by insurance companies who have asked for and had approved those specific terms. In other words, there is nothing arbitrary or subjective about the way that Ontario motorcycle policies are underwritten.





And for the purposes of simplicity, we'll leave Physical Damage coverage of the motorcycles out of the equation and assume that this discussion is of basic mandatory coverages since obviously you CAN have more than one motorcycle stolen, vandalized, burned, or knocked over at the same time.

And we also want to point out that, if you increase the coverage levels of your Accident Benefits, the additional premium for the buy back or enhancement is only charged against one of your motorcycles (or cars). Which is precisely what you would want to happen.

When you insure a motorcycle, anyone who has your permission and is legally entitled to ride, can ride your bike. That includes anyone with any level of Ontario M class licence (M1, M2, M), visitors from overseas carrying the applicable international drivers licence, visitors from the United States whose licence is valid in the same manner... and provided that the person in question is not impaired or similarly barred from operating a motorcycle under legal provisions, the insurance policy would have to cover any insured losses that would occur while that person is operating the bike.

There is a form that the owner and specific persons can sign that specifies that the specific person is excluded from riding a specific motorcycle. This form is called the OPCF 28A.

There is no form that an owner can sign that stipulates that no one else can ride his or her motorcycle. This is the critical point in this article; both of your motorcycles can be ridden at the same time, one by you and the other by your sister, or one by your neighbour and the other by some guy who happened to walk by and you decided to lend your bike to.

In other words, if the insurance company gave you a 90% discount on bike number two, they are helpless to prevent you from simply letting someone else ride it, because they cannot change the wording of the insurance policy to stop that from happening.

It's a two way street. The insurance policy has to protect both parties to the contract. If insurance companies offered a 90% discount on bike number two based on an unenforceable 'promise' not to lend out the bike, everyone knows that there would be enough people with flexible morals who would take advantage of the situation by grouping a bunch of their bikes together and sharing the significant savings. The resultant losses would put the insurance company out of business or would result in a shortfall of funds to cover claims.

So to be able to allow insurance companies to offer such savings for multibike policies, there would have to be a change in the insurance contract at a legislative/regulatory level, and frankly, there is probably not a lot of eagerness to do so since such a stipulation would not solve the fact that even excluded riders can collect certain Accident Benefits.

So yes, insurance companies get it. They know you can only ride one motorcycle at a time. But you still have to plate and insure them separately. There are some savings involved in insuring more than one motorcycle, and that is how it will likely remain for the foreseeable future."

End of Riders Plus explanation

It all makes sense to me now except why someone can't write a 28A-like clause into the contract to exclude all other riders. On the surface it doesn't look like a ton of work and maybe some insurance guru can explain.

The sticking point as mentioned in the article is morals but by signing the new "Only me" clause one puts their whole financial future on the line

The main concern I would have is that the courts have a leaning to favour the injured party in a lawsuit.

ie Biker "A" in a moment of weakness loans a bike to a friend and friend hits a poor struggling pedestrian. I can see the courts saying the insurance company has to pay up and can seek restitution from biker "A". Biker "A" declares bankruptcy.

Maybe the legal beagles can correct but some debts are not washed by bankruptcy and I thought criminal acts were one of them. So to protect their assets the insurance companies lobby to have riding w/o insurance made a criminal charge.

Now everyone who does genuinely forget a pink slip or forgets to renew or has payment lost of in the mail / by the bank ends up with a criminal charge.

Going to the USA you can be asked "Have you ever been charged?" Not convicted, CHARGED. Please go to the little room.

Bottom line is don't expect changes soon.
 
It all makes sense to me now except why someone can't write a 28A-like clause into the contract to exclude all other riders. On the surface it doesn't look like a ton of work and maybe some insurance guru can explain.

Because as you pointed out above they are still on or some of the Accident Benefits regardless of the 28A endrosement. When a motorcyclist hits a bridge those Accident Benefits sure add up in a hurry, even the limited ones they can still collect.

I think what you really want is the 28A to exclude ANY ACCIDENT BENEFITS from being collected by anyone excluded under the 28A endorsement.
 
the whole explanation could've been simplified to "it's a money grab, we want more money from you."
 
the whole explanation could've been simplified to "it's a money grab, we want more money from you."

Actually the money grab started with people who had bad records using their parents good records. ie Put car in dad's name to evade the high premium. The insurance companies caught on and changed the rules.
 
Actually the money grab started with people who had bad records using their parents good records. ie Put car in dad's name to evade the high premium. The insurance companies caught on and changed the rules.

then ins. companies should just only punish the people who have bad records. instead everyone gets the shaft. HEY! a few sportbikers are wreckless, lets ban ALL sportbikes. sounds ridiculous in this context right?
 
then ins. companies should just only punish the people who have bad records. instead everyone gets the shaft. HEY! a few sportbikers are wreckless, lets ban ALL sportbikes. sounds ridiculous in this context right?
A few? Have you seen the fatal crash rate and relative claims rate for sportbike riders vs other riders? There's a reason some insurers want nothing to do with sportbikes except at the price of a hefty premium.
 
A few? Have you seen the fatal crash rate and relative claims rate for sportbike riders vs other riders? There's a reason some insurers want nothing to do with sportbikes except at the price of a hefty premium.

my previous post was not about ss rider claim rates. i hope u realize that.
 
This article is pretty much the exact explanation I have been giving over the last few years. It's good to see that Rider's Plus posted an official response though.

The OPCF28a endorsement requires the original signature of the specifically excluded operator. There is no way that you could get everyone in the world with access to your bike to sign an OPCF28a-like exclusion form.

FYI, here is the OPCF28a form as it exists today:
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/bulletins/autobulletins/2005/a-03_05-1.pdf

With all of the other AB issues going on right now, I wouldn't expect the Gov't or FSCO to rush and make any changes to cater to those fortunate enough to afford the luxury of multiple vehicles.

I would like to see a resolution to this as much as the next person though.
 
Last edited:
If you can afford to have two bikes to enjoy your passion than you can certainly afford to pay for it in proper terms!

I used to have a bike but now it doesn't make much sense to me to own one. We are paying enough already in auto insurance premiums being in GTA

Think about the first statement. Just because you have a few extra bucks in your pocket it doesn't mean you're available to be fleeced. Some people derive satisfaction from more house than they need, some from a bigger car than they need and some from more bikes than they need.

My bike is a big chunk of my motivation. Read up on Communist Russia if you want to see how demotivation works.

My gripe with the double insurance is more against the cheats that brought this on than the insurance companies that changed the rules.
 
If the explanation holds true, then premiums for cars should be calculated the same way, no? Why isn't this the case?
Why does this discrepancy exist between car and bike insurance?
 
Think about the first statement. Just because you have a few extra bucks in your pocket it doesn't mean you're available to be fleeced. Some people derive satisfaction from more house than they need, some from a bigger car than they need and some from more bikes than they need.

My bike is a big chunk of my motivation. Read up on Communist Russia if you want to see how demotivation works.

My gripe with the double insurance is more against the cheats that brought this on than the insurance companies that changed the rules.

I agree with you 100%, but at the present time, I don't see a cost-effective solution to the multiple-bikes-per-one-rider issue.
 
If the explanation holds true, then premiums for cars should be calculated the same way, no? Why isn't this the case?
Why does this discrepancy exist between car and bike insurance?

If you have multiple cars, you pay multiple premiums as well.
 
If you have multiple cars, you pay multiple premiums as well.

It was my understanding that significant savings are available if one driver insures two vehicles (with no other drivers in the household).

i.e., if I have two identical cars I pay just a bit more than what I would pay for one (and a lot less than double). Whereas, if I had two identical bikes, I'd pay almost double (assuming a multi-vehicle discount kicks in here).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
It was my understanding that significant savings are available if one driver insures two vehicles (with no other drivers in the household).

i.e., if I have two identical cars I pay just a bit more than what I would pay for one (and a lot less than double). Whereas, if I had two identical bikes, I'd pay almost double (assuming a multi-vehicle discount kicks in here).

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. Both cars and bikes are treated the same, and you pay close to double the premium if you own two cars rather than one. Some companies give a small discount, but I have never heard of anything more than 10%.
 
You are wrong. Both cars and bikes are treated the same, and you pay close to double the premium if you own two cars rather than one. Some companies give a small discount, but I have never heard of anything more than 10%.

I had two cars. One listed as the primary and the second listed as my secondary vehicle. The second car was only about 30% of the fist policy although the value of the second car was higher

I do not buy the "you can lend your bike to someone" nonsense.

I can my lend my second car to someone with out the insurance company raking me through the coals for $$$$$$

I currently have three motorcycles an would love to have more but insurance makes it impossible.

I can only ride one at a time.

My friend in the USA has a dozen bikes that he can choose to ride any day and does not pay full premiums on each one.
 
Last edited:
the regulatory framework of Ontario Compulsory Auto Insurance Act is what caused this
the biggest increase came when they took away the right to litigate except in severe cases
and replaced that with accident benefits that are now around 50% of total premium
youngins here might not recall, but that has not always been a requirement

the ins cos and gov are of course in cahoots on this, they helped the gov write the bill
was a win for both of them

gov got to download the cost of some health care from auto accidents
to private insurance rather than OHIP covering it

ins cos win as they got to sell us another expensive, legally mandated part of the policy

and because the law was immature, it was abused, accident benefits became an easy fraud score
so the rates on that new component of your policy skyrocketed

the Act is broken, flawed beyond repair, needs to be scrapped and re-imagined
 
Problem with writing an OCF-28 to exclude ALL other riders and paying out NO accident benefits to ANYONE is if the bike owner lends out the bike due to their "morals" and that bike then hits and injures someone else. The insurer could deny the claim for the rider if he/she were injured, but they couldn't deny paying out on the person who was hit and injured. So the insurer is still on the hook potentially for millions in accident benefits.

Sure the insurer would then go after the rider that "borrowed" the bike as well as the policy holder, (an no doubt cancel their insurance, sending them to the facility market for any future insurance). BUT, the likelihood of recovering the millions is between slim and none.

Bankruptcy, can be declared by both parties. The ONLY things that don't get released in a bankruptcy are court FINES, civil judgments are NOT exempt from a filing.
 
It will not work from a government perspective today BUT if we could insure a plate and the insurance was on the highest cost (to insure) registered bike on the policy/plate. There is only one plate and the plate needs to be on the bike you are riding that day (only ride one at a time)... if you lend a bike (or even take it to the mechanic and he/she needs to test ride it), there is only one plate so all the other bikes are tucked in at home... Totally does not work with how vehicles are registered today and there is not enough of us to get anyone to care about this kind of change, so likely a total non-starter but in theory a workable solution.

Another way "potentially" around this car and possibly bike wise (if such a thing exists for bikes) is classic car insurance. Usually pretty low cost BUT the vehicle insured under such a policy will have strict usage rules...must be parked in a garage, cannot drive to work, cannot take it to the store, limited kms per year..... pleasure use only.
 

Back
Top Bottom