Why do insurance companies ask about not-at-fault accidents? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Why do insurance companies ask about not-at-fault accidents?

D

drumstyx

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
I had 2 car accidents last year, 1 my fault, 1 just bad luck, completely not-at-fault. When I run quotes online, for simplicity's sake, I usually only put the 1 at-fault, because I know for a fact not-at-fault accidents should not affect the rate, and often having multiple accidents makes online quoting break.

Is this some underhanded way of them trying to not insure those with multiple accidents, even if not at fault? Do they have any effect at all on the rate or insurability?
 
The reason behind it is to figure out what type of not at fault accidents the person has, we are not looking for accidents not at fault where you were hit by a 3rd party.
But also accidents where there was a hit and run, how many hit and runs can a person be involved in, or are they just hitting their car somewhere and claiming a hit and run.
 
Ontario 'no-fault insurance'.

Under the _mandatory_ 'Direct Compensation Property Damage' section of your policy, your own insurance company pays to repair damages due to not-at-fault collisions. There is no recovery for vehicle damages from the other 'at-fault' insurance company.

We voted for this as it removes much of the legal costs related to a tort system.

So if you are prone to not-at-fault collisions, you are a higher risk for your insurance company.
 
FLSTC said:
Ontario 'no-fault insurance'.

Under the _mandatory_ 'Direct Compensation Property Damage' section of your policy, your own insurance company pays to repair damages due to not-at-fault collisions. There is no recovery for vehicle damages from the other 'at-fault' insurance company.

We voted for this as it removes much of the legal costs related to a tort system.

So if you are prone to not-at-fault collisions, you are a higher risk for your insurance company.
Click to expand...

But not-at-faults are legally mandated to not affect rates, are they not?
 
drumstyx said:
But not-at-faults are legally mandated to not affect rates, are they not?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct!

R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 664: AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
under Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8
...

Prohibited Risk Classification Elements (Sections 410 to 417 of the Act)
16. (1) Insurers are prohibited from using elements of a risk classification system described in this section in classifying risks for any coverage or category of automobile insurance. O. Reg. 780/93, s. 8 (1).
(2) No element of a risk classification system shall use past claims arising out of accidents occurring on or after September 1, 2010 for which an insured person was 25 per cent or less at fault. O. Reg. 36/10, s. 4.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom