State Farm renewal raises my Super Sport rate 275% on BMW

Blackfin said:

Oh please. The OP stated:

"I was advised that my new rate was the best rate a State Farm customer could expect as I had never filed an insurance claim, no tickets, 2 decades of continuous motorcycle coverage and have safe storage in a garage."

He isn't some pimply-faced kid if he's been riding continuously for 2 decades. He's not irresponsible, is mature and has good judgement if he's never filed a claim and had no tickets.

This is money grubbing pure and simple. It's a cartel of insurance companies not competing with each other and colluding to provide government-mandated coverage at super-high cost because they know people have no coverage alternative.

Click to expand...

I was responding to the under-25 on SS comment, and it stands.

As far as the OP's bike and others in its class are concerned, his bike is touted as:
I can fully understand that the insurance companies would see such bikes as being a greater claims risk and can fully understand that they would rate what is essentially a race bike with headlights and turn signals accordingly. Crash stats bear that out.

Motorcycle driver deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, 2000 vs. 2005

You can't insure a high-powered Ferrari for the same money that you would insure a Chevy Impala regardless of spotless driving record or not. Why wouldn't you expect a hit when insuring a high-power street-legal race bike?

PrivatePilot said:

L

Unfortunately, the way insurance works is collectively. The underwriters look at the bigger picture and decide the risks involved.

So, in some respects, I have to disagree with your statement - now everyone collectively suffers because of that pimply faced kid who does stupid things on his SS....because they're the ones that crash and cost insurance companies lots and lots of money. So, now unfortunately, as life sometimes go...the many pay for the stupidity of the few. Although I wonder what the stats are...the ratio of crazies on sport bikes to what would be generally accepted as responsible and mature seems upside down, something that probably has a lot to do with this as well.

Im not defending insurance companies nor do I think that it's always right in the case of good riders getting majorly hosed at the expense of the shifty riders, but there is ultimately the greater picture the underwriters see.

The number of stories here about running from police, street racing etc etc etc ultimately translates to RISK, and that's exactly how insurance is priced in the end, the same as how an excellent driver with even just basic liability only coverage on something high performance like a Corvette or a Porche (let's leave vehicle value out of the equation) is going to pay a lot more in premiums vs if they were driving a Cavalier - risk.

Risk is everything in insurance, and a lot of sport bike riders are their own worst enemy in demonstrating time and time and again that they expose themselves to crazy levels of risk. Sadly, the good and responsible riders are caught in the fallout in the end, some less than others, but everyone feels the wave.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but am not convinced that SF's -- sorry, Dejardins' -- sorry, Certas' -- move is anything other than a cynical cash grab. SF was quite satisfied with the rates they offered individuals. It was only after the takeover by Dejardins that this hit occured. SF was competing successfully -- were they profitable with the rates they were offering? -- and now they are simply colluding with the other outfits out there. If the government mandates such coverage then it should play a far more active role in ensuring a more equitable balance between profit and affordability across all aspects of the industry, not just what soccer-moms driving minivans are paying.

griff2 said:

You can't insure a high-powered Ferrari for the same money that you would insure a Chevy Impala regardless of spotless driving record or not. Why wouldn't you expect a hit when insuring a high-power street-legal race bike?

Click to expand...

He was already paying $1440 for the privilege of riding 5 mos of the year. You're going to need to do more to convince me that a rider with a clean riding record and 2 decades of continuous experience deserves to be punished with a take-it-or-leave-it 275% rate increase after a corporate take-over.

This is akin to that retard Shkreli of Turing Pharma that aquires the rights to Daraprim and overnight raises the price from $13 to $750 a pill.

Used SS (Track) bikes could be a lot cheaper in the spring.

TD still has good ss rates...for me they were cheaper than sf.

Blackfin said:

SF was quite satisfied with the rates they offered individuals. It was only after the takeover by Dejardins that this hit occured. SF was competing successfully -- were they profitable with the rates they were offering?

Click to expand...

Were they? Or were they loosing their shirts but just continuing to compete to maintain business and keep people happy? Or were they barely breaking even and only (again) offering the rates they were offering in an effort to keep their other business (home and auto) insurance customers happy?

In reading many of the threads around here it seems that State Farm was to go to option for a lot of people, so the reality is that perhaps they got upside down on their liability and risk.

Unless you you have access to heir books it's all an assumption that they were "quite satisfied" with their rates.

PrivatePilot said:

Exactly. Driving is still a privilege, not a right. Buy a cheaper car that you can afford to insure, or take the bus ultimately if you can't afford that even.

The courts don't care that you can't afford the expenses related to what amounts to a "toy" for most riders.

And again I'm not necessarily defending the insurance companies, and I do think that the system is in desperate need of reform, but the knee-jerk reactions of just throwing a lawsuit at every problem isn't the solution. Write a letter to your MP or something more productive, or join an organized cause that will take up the issue collectively.

Click to expand...

+1

I hate insurance premiums as much as the next guy, but there's a reason it's not cheap.

Motorcycles are dangerous. They are cheap. Licensing in Canada is a joke. Not a good combination.

Turning 30 with a clean record riding over 6 years driving 13 years all with SF. I'm not too worried.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

daisoman said:

Turning 30 with a clean record riding over 6 years driving 13 years all with SF. I'm not too worried.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Allstate is taking care of the 30+ yr old riders. They've been very competitive with their rates the last few years.

PrivatePilot said:

Were they? Or were they loosing their shirts but just continuing to compete to maintain business and keep people happy?

Click to expand...

Insurance companies don't do anything to "keep people happy." If they were losing their shirts they would have hiked premiums long ago.

I'm with SF and currently pay ~$1050 a year for my Fazer 8. I'm 48yo, married, no at-faults or moving violation tickets, I own my home, we have three cars with them (a Mustang GT and a Subaru STi), don't live in Toronto etc. I'm pretty happy with that figure especially since I only got my M2 about a year ago. When I asked my agent for a quote they would have given me a figure not based on "let's make him happy"; it would have been derived more from "what's the risk and what do we need to achieve profit margin etc etc". While my agent is a super nice person with whom I have a good rapport, in the bowels of SF's mainframes I'm just a faceless, nameless number. They don't care if I'm happy.

Or were they barely breaking even and only (again) offering the rates they were offering in an effort to keep their other business (home and auto) insurance customers happy?

Click to expand...

If they hike my rates to the extent the OP saw they will lose all of my business. They must have thought of that. Small potatoes in the end but I'll feel better about it.

The problem is that there's no other cartel member I can turn to that will compete for business. They've got the mandatory-insurance racket tied up nicely and evenly between them and they have no incentive to compete.

I was with Desjadins for a few years. I ride cruisers, (occassionaly I will ride my friends 650 Ninja). My rate was insanely high, (2.5 times what I now with TD). When I asked Desjardins why the difference they said, "it seems like TD is "going after" the cruiser market". When I got the quote from TD, (I confirmed it three times). I asked and they basically said the same thing. We are pricing cruiser rates aggressively in hopes of capturing the cruiser market. The rep then said we know we can't compete with SF on sport bike rates, nor why would we the cruiser market is MUCH lower risk.

As for the why should one person like the OP suffer because of other younger less skilled and higher risk riders. Simple, the ratio of mature riders of SS's is MUCH lower compared to younger high risk riders than with cruisers. With cruisers the vast majority of riders are mature riders, with SS the vast majority are younger males.

As for the guy with the CBR1000 Good luck with that "class action suit" what exactly will be your grounds for the suit? Have you ever even looked into how class action suits work? You won't even get it certified. SF/Desjardins has an excellent "opportunity" (from a business perspective), here. They have merged and as such are in essence a "new company". Therefore, they are not constrained in raising of rates for "returning clients" as they can argue your not actually falling under a "renewal" as the policy is now held by a "new company".

I am certainly, NO fan of any insurance company, I have suits pending agianst SF as well as TD. But as a business decision SF/Desjardins, No longer wants to be seen as "the" go to for SS or riders with higher cc sport bikes. How many threads have we seen here at GTAM that the default answer for some young rider who just bought a 600 SS is told to go to SF as it will be the only "affordable" option?

There will be a company that will fill the void, BUT they likely won't be seen as competitive as SF was viewed to be.

Blackfin, you do have "other cartel members" who you can go to. Problem is they may not be as inexpensive as you want them to be. The ONLY way the gov't will become involved is if all companies suddenly refused to insure SS's or higher cc sport bikes. Any company as long as they file with the FSCO can choose not "offer" a product on a "line of vehicles". But at least one option must remain. If it makes a good business case then a company will offer this product, but it may be the end of a single "go to" situation.

Blackfin said:

Insurance companies don't do anything to "keep people happy."

Click to expand...

Funny, BelairDirect offers 7 year clean customers a crash proof policy that basically gives you a "Freebie" at fault without it affecting your rates so long as don't have another at fault for the following 7 years.

In about 16 years with Belair both me and my wife have benefited from this, having both had one at fault accident (each) that ended up costing us nothing in regards to rate increases. To the contrary, our policies went down several of the following 7 years until each of us were eligible for the crash proof deal again. That sure seems to be something that they're offering to "keep people happy". The same as multi car discounts, home and vehicle policy discounts, loyalty discounts, professional membership discounts (which are mentioned all the time here for TD customers) and some insurance companies like Grey Power even offer a first year discount to woo new customers.

So yeah, I have to respectfully disagree. They offer all sorts of things to keep people happy.

Blackfin said:

If they hike my rates to the extent the OP saw they will lose all of my business.

Click to expand...

And I'm confident they've factored that into their decision - no company that can put 2+2 together doesn't think that jacking a customers fees up drastically isn't going to put that customer at risk of taking their business elsewhere, but it's safe to assume they either don't care, or perhaps they're trying to just wash their hands of the sportbike market and this is the method to accomplish it.

While this sucks, if even a small amount of current SS riders realize they can take it to the track and it increases revenue moving in and out of race track organizations/owners, there might be a silver lining.






...............I realize I am stretching this a lot to find a silver lining

I have "accident forgiveness" with TD as well. Will have to try allstate for the bike and see how they compare.

If SF was doing so well why were they bought out??

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Benny! said:

If SF was doing so well why were they bought out??

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Successful companies are bought every day

It seems like State Farm/Certa doesn't want to ensure certain types of bikes. That's the reason for the drastic increase in such premiums so that people would take their business elsewhere. It doesn't seem like a widespread issue because I called my insurance company and they said they have not heard of such an upcoming change, they said they would have heard about it by now if this was going to be effective Jan 1st.

Sounds like an isolated and strategic decision of that company.

Brian_S said:

It's funny you mentioned this but my insurance (Personal) considers both FZ-07 and FZ-09 as street bikes not SS.

Click to expand...

SF goes by CC or some **** like that. I am paying slightly more for my 2014 Fz09 than for my 2010 Gsxr 750

griff2 said:

This is insurance companies stepping in to address a failure of the government to implement graduated motorcycle licensing based on power limits such as is in place in Britain. Maybe this will help keep more of The Young and The Reckless in good health while they hone their riding skills and possibly even gain some maturity and good judgement.

Click to expand...

I've always thought that this was the case. Risk and skill need to be correlated, the government is unwilling to do this, so insurance companies, who are keeping track of their stats, back this up with their premium structure. SS riders can buy any bike they like but can they afford the insurance?

Instead of saying to a new rider "You're not experienced enough for an SS", which does not dissuade many riders, we now say "Check your insurance premium before you buy your bike". In the end I think this system does work quite well. Economically forcing new riders to get a non-SS bike they can afford is safer for the rider, better for the riding community, and better for society in general.

The SS insurance ecosystem will adapt. As SS rates increase there will be fewer inexperienced riders and more experienced riders, so there should be fewer claims. When claims drop so does the calculated risk and therefore the associated premium. The system will find equilibrium. As the premiums fall more riders will be drawn to an SS, risk goes up and therefore their premiums. The system will again find equilibrium.

I realize I am an insignificant statistic to all these insurance companies, and you should as well. They care little to keep existing business, and would rather go after new business. Do them the favour and shop all insurance companies. I have no allegiance to any one of them. This is how the industry works. I have never heard any insurance company tell me that they will miss my business. Their usual reply is more along the lines of "Don't let the door hit your *** on the way out".

On the positive side as a cruiser rider I've always stayed away from SF. Now that they are biasing to cruisers there will be more competition for cruiser policies and theoretically lower rates.

Saw this coming. Desjardin hates motorcycles no matter what they say. They hate large CID bikes even more. I will be jumping ship next year if the rate on my HD is too high. I'll take all my insurance with me - house, car, etc.