Right after you ... Just use your favourite tool the Google, it's all out there. Better yet, let me know which jurisdiction allows a bigger location surcharge than Ontario.
|
|
|
Google Auto Insurance
- Thread starter alangolding25
- Start date
Right after you ... Just use your favourite tool the Google, it's all out there. Better yet, let me know which jurisdiction allows a bigger location surcharge than Ontario.
The companies could simply stop offering insurance if they don't think they can lower the rate. The government has no control over whether they will continue to be in the business or not.
Again, I am not assuming anything. The government can try themselves if the companies fail to implement the cut. The problem is that, bar some acquisitions, nobody is exactly quitting their business. Still well over 10 insurance companies on the Ontario market .... You still have not answered the very original question, why do they continue to run auto insurance business if the ROI is so bad ???
I will agree with you on one thing, that the rate rhetoric from the government has significantly toned down. But that doesn't mean the rates are acceptable, especially for people who have never been found at fault, ever ... Nor had any claims in the long run.
I would go as far as saying, show me a more expensive jurisdiction in G20 as far as auto insurance goes ... I would bet you will not find one.
LOL ... Had no clue.
That whole "auto rates are regulated and the insurance companies can't increase or decrease them without approval" thing is ********. Yes, changes require approval, how stringent is the approval process? "Our CEO made 8 million, but now wants to make 15 million, so we need to raise rates". It's clear that the regulation doesn't work. Why are we so apologetic to the industry that is literally worse than the same industry in the biggest cities in North America. It's cheaper to insure a car in MANHATTAN than it is to insure one in Toronto. That's. Broken.
You are being hysterical. Inusrance companies have to file for rate increases as well as decreases and of course they aren't just handed what they want. It's regulated .
how much driving does a car in Manhattan do???? Have you been there . Most people don't drive anywhere at all but take cabs. and where are you getting its cheaper to insure a car in Manhattan than in toronto?
Its actaully the law that a broker or company cannot refuse an auto quote to you if you call them and ask for one. If they can't help you they have to by law refer you to another broker or company.its a lot more complicated to just stop a business that is regulated and required than it is to close up a pizza shop.
Commercial insurance they can do what they want. Personal no.
Can you dig up some numbers? Looking for % surcharge for location ....
But that doesn't surprise me, or should it? If they stop providing the business they lose money on, I would expect them to not quote, perhaps refer me to someone else, as you said.
I wouldn't expect it to be as easy as closing pizza shop, but the government doesn't force them to sell the product.
Last edited:
I would agree with you that Manhattan is not a fortunate example, but again, the mandatory coverage and liability associated in US vs Ontario is a day and night. I have not heard an ordinary person living anywhere in US paying nowhere near our rates. But then, I would not expect them.
Or things that are proper but you just think they aren't. People love to pay anything for what they want, they hate paying one penny for what they need. For example all you hear is gas, hydro, insurance, taxes are way too high. No one complains about the price of alcohol, Starbucks , Apple products and motorcycles
If it was 10 bucks a year someone would complain. When you hear people with massive claims still bitching about the cost of insurance you know it's a discussion they don't want to have.
OK sonny is answering some questions and making some valid points. Here's another question.
If a person owns three bikes why can't he/ she agree to an OPCF 28 disallowing all other riders from using the bikes?
I understand comp, fire, theft etc but since only one bike can be in use at a time why the multiple hit on liability or medical coverage etc? They are the largest part of the premium.
FWIW I looked at my pink slip and there is room on it for the phrase "Only valid for named operator" in case of a cop stop.
If the insurance companies were forced to be more competitive they would look at these options. They would also have to look at internal inefficiencies in their offices. They would be forced to fight fraud instead of passing the buck to the poor honest suckers.
If a person owns three bikes why can't he/ she agree to an OPCF 28 disallowing all other riders from using the bikes?
I understand comp, fire, theft etc but since only one bike can be in use at a time why the multiple hit on liability or medical coverage etc? They are the largest part of the premium.
FWIW I looked at my pink slip and there is room on it for the phrase "Only valid for named operator" in case of a cop stop.
If the insurance companies were forced to be more competitive they would look at these options. They would also have to look at internal inefficiencies in their offices. They would be forced to fight fraud instead of passing the buck to the poor honest suckers.
Carlos Vincent
Well-known member
OPCF 28 is only valid if the name and driver’s license of the excluded driver is listed on the policy, you can’t just exclude all other riders.
Simply because there are 3 different vehicles with different VIN, each will have to be insured separately, otherwise you will be charged driving without insurance.
Ontario laws will never let that happen,don’t take on insurance companies.
What you fail to realize is that insurance companies have to follow Ontario laws, unless that changes nothing they can’t do about it.
Last edited:
Think about what you just wrote.
Basically you want to protect the system that has been worked out between the insurers and the government. Laws and rules can be changed.
It's just a bit of paperwork if someone wanted to do it but why should they if it's making them a bundle.
Is it incomprehensible for a policy to exclude all other drivers / riders? No but the owner has to realize that NO ONE ELSE can legally move their vehicle, even a mechanic unless he/she has a blanket cover of his/her own.
Your answer is part of the problem in that it perpetuates the adversarial nature of the insurance business. You seem fail to address the reality of the situation. The "If I'm not screwing you, you must be screwing me" attitude will just get worse.
You will note that I wrote he/she and his/her. At one time an employer could say "He" and "His" to exclude women from certain jobs. They changed the law because it wasn't fair.
A woman couldn't go into a bar without a male companion. They changed the law because it wasn't fair.
Companies hired women for certain jobs because they could be paid less. They changed the law because it wasn't fair.
They changed the laws on gift cards, phone numbers etc etc etc.
Tell me why (Other than bits of paper) why the triple charge is justified if the owner is prepared to accept the very fixed terms.
Roomie
Banned
Regardless of what the owner is prepared to accept, there is no justification. It's total bs and simply lines insurers pockets. As was said above, take it out on the honest suckers is how onterrible works.
|
|
|
|
|