Non-fault accident but still "at-fault" - Page 2



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

  1. #21
    Neil_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Forum Sponsor
    Quote Originally Posted by PrivatePilot View Post
    Accident forgiveness, that's what makes me loyal. A lot of insurance companies won't offer it until you're with them for a number of years, and with the potential to save many thousands of dollars in the case of a major at-fault accident, yes..it keeps us loyal.

    Our insurance company does also offer us a bit of a discount for being with them long term as well, so hey...it's something. Multi vehicle discount as well.
    Don't know where the accident forgiveness claim comes from, but I've got it, and have since day one with the last two insurers (for sure) and I don't ever recall being told it required any loyalty period by any previous insurer. Not saying it's not possible, just never seen/heard of it... and I do indeed switch insurers every year or two.
    2013 Aprilia RSV4 R APRC

  2. #22
    Riceburner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Stuck in Reality
    Posts
    4,924

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Accident forgiveness only applies to your own ins. company, correct? If the other company decides you are at a % fault in a not your fault accident, yer still screwed, no?

  3. #23
    PrivatePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arrrrrrrrrr.
    Posts
    3,867

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by slowbird View Post
    The Police and my insurance company have decided I am not at fault.

    The other drivers insurance company agrees I am not at fault for the accident and the Property damage portion of the claim, but they believe I am 20% at fault for the Bodily injury portion of the claim.
    FWIW the police can find you not at fault in an accident and your own insurance company can still find you partially or fully at fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riceburner View Post
    Accident forgiveness only applies to your own ins. company, correct? If the other company decides you are at a % fault in a not your fault accident, yer still screwed, no?
    Nope, it means zero effect on your own insurance no matter what. That is so long as you remain with your current insurer however - you will still have an "at fault" on your record after all, but the company that forgave it won't rate you on it. If you switch to a new company then of course they will indeed hold it against you as they have no reason to forgive anything from the past for a new customer.
    --VTX1300 (Mine)
    ---VStar 650 (Wife)
    ----GZ250 Marauder (Sold)
    Insurance Price Heat Map

  4. #24
    slowbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,660

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    The problem with the accident forgiveness is that you are now "stuck" with that insurance company.

    In my situation my insurance company cranked my premiums (when I asked why they had no real reason. It wasn't anything I did according to them) and there wasn't anything I could do because if I tried to get quotes elsewhere they would see the one accident I had with accident forgiveness...and the Motorcycle accident that I was rated as 0% at fault but the other drivers insurance listed me as 20% of the bodily injury. So every insurance company would say "That is 2 at fault claims technically so we can quote you." even though by law they aren't supposed to be using anything less than 25% to rate against.


    Quote Originally Posted by PrivatePilot View Post
    FWIW the police can find you not at fault in an accident and your own insurance company can still find you partially or fully at fault.
    Yes. But please don't confuse that with my situation and the point of this thread where both insurance companies and the police found me not at fault for the collision.
    -Matt
    2000 VFR800 INTERCEPTOR

    2005 VFR800 Interceptor (sold)
    1997 VFR750F (SMIDSY victim)
    1986 VFR750F Honda Interceptor (sold)
    1986 VF500F Honda Interceptor (sold)


  5. #25
    PrivatePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arrrrrrrrrr.
    Posts
    3,867

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by slowbird View Post
    The problem with the accident forgiveness is that you are now "stuck" with that insurance company.
    You are of course right (well, sorta, you CAN switch of course), but I would rather be stuck with an insurance company that's still rating my yearly policy as if I never had an accident then with a different insurance company that's surcharging me 50% because of the at fault for the first 4-5 years I'm with them.

    I do remember that the last at fault we had (My wife ran my GTP under the back of a pickup truck about 10 years ago) our insurance actually went DOWN several of the subsequent years, same as if it would have had the accident never happened.
    --VTX1300 (Mine)
    ---VStar 650 (Wife)
    ----GZ250 Marauder (Sold)
    Insurance Price Heat Map

  6. #26
    Neil_V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Hamilton
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    The rest of Ontario complained about ever increasing insurance rates so much so that the Ontario guberment had to step in "help" us out with a 15% reduction. What alternate reality do you exist in that over "several" of the last 10 years your rates actually decreased? The only time I see reduction is when I switch... Am I doing something wrong? Zero claims in 15 fwiw...
    2013 Aprilia RSV4 R APRC

  7. #27
    PrivatePilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arrrrrrrrrr.
    Posts
    3,867

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    The only times ours have ever changed aside from small movements up/down every year at renewal (the 15% reduction plan, etc) is when we've change vehicles. It went down considerably when we bought the 300 4-5 years back as it replaced a subcompact/micro car at the time which the insurance co considered far risker from an accident injury standpoint. The 300 was fairly consistent the entire time we owned it, but the price went up a little when we switched to the Volt more so because of it's value than anything else.

    I don't know, but I guess BelAir has just been good to us - we've never seen these huge increases others seem to get.
    --VTX1300 (Mine)
    ---VStar 650 (Wife)
    ----GZ250 Marauder (Sold)
    Insurance Price Heat Map

  8. #28
    TwistedKestrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Grimsby
    Posts
    4,407

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    I used BelAir in the past, but there was something about them I didn't like. I can't remember what it was, maybe some specific rule they had
    Briefly bikeless
    "Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things." -Douglas Adams

  9. #29

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by PrivatePilot View Post
    Accident forgiveness, that's what makes me loyal. A lot of insurance companies won't offer it until you're with them for a number of years, and with the potential to save many thousands of dollars in the case of a major at-fault accident, yes..it keeps us loyal.

    Our insurance company does also offer us a bit of a discount for being with them long term as well, so hey...it's something. Multi vehicle discount as well.
    I have switched three times in last 5 years (because hiking costs for no reason invoked on my part) ... and every single time everyone new who quoted me, offered "accident forgiveness" ..... so it's not linked to loyalty, but rather to revenue. It's not free, you pay for it ....

    To think that today there's a loyalty factor involved in Ontario insurance business is just crazy, as Neil has said. It just doesn't exist ... the insurance companies don't care ... which they express by hiking consistently rates every year (your mileage may vary obviously ...) regardless whether you had a ticket or claim ... thus the client should not care either.

    It's simply a race for the best value any company can offer to me and the products I need them to insure. Really simple.

  10. #30

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil_V View Post
    The rest of Ontario complained about ever increasing insurance rates so much so that the Ontario guberment had to step in "help" us out with a 15% reduction. What alternate reality do you exist in that over "several" of the last 10 years your rates actually decreased? The only time I see reduction is when I switch... Am I doing something wrong? Zero claims in 15 fwiw...
    Exactly .... my aging friend blew a gasket when his rate went up by almost 20% recently ... when I suggested, it must be, because he just must have entered a new, less forgiving, age group (although I am not 100% sure, the insurance company has not explained it to him either) .... essentially I told him, he's considered now "old" and thus a danger on the road. He promptly booked an appointment with an MP ... just to tell them, that he's not taking their Liberal BS anymore and is ready to go vote blue next time around ... if they lose him (lifetime Lib) they stand no chance. Anyway, we worked on a list talking points of the Lib's promise of 15% reduction did NOT deliver on ... it was loooong. He understands now, how the Libs got away with this across the board BS promise ..... until then he had no idea, he really expected his rates to drop.

  11. #31

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Thanks for posting this Slowbird, and sorry to hear.

    I was in a similar situation, so thank you for the heads up. Last year I was cut off by a car while riding and had the bike's value paid out in full as well as physio bills. I was found to be not at fault by my insurance company. There was no officer on scene so no fault was determined aside from my own insurance company.

    As a result, I was told by my insurance agent that since I'm 0% at fault I will have no issue shopping for insurance elsewhere down the road. Had I have been 50-100% at fault, I'd be stuck with them. Now reading this makes me wonder.

    The other vehicle that was involved had registered American plates with an American insurance company (I'm assuming the car belonged to a relative of the driver since they shared the same surname). I guess my question is, how can I find out what fault (if any) the other insurance company put me under? Also, since it's an American insurance company, if they did deem any fault towards me would it still show up on my Ontario record?

    My renewal came in at roughly the same rate as last year, but this really does have me wondering what's showing on my record and what I can expect when and if it comes time to shop around.
    Last edited by Krime; 05-08-2017 at 10:12 AM.

  12. #32

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by Krime View Post

    My renewal came in at roughly the same rate as last year, but this really does have me wondering what's showing on my record and what I can expect when and if it comes time to shop around.
    Don't wait .. there's always time to shop around .... it's painful, sitting on the phone, dealing with the piles of paper etc. ... I hate it, but there's always savings to be had. Sometimes, negligible, other times, quite sizable. But you will not know, unless you get on the phone ...

  13. #33

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by mxs View Post
    Don't wait .. there's always time to shop around .... it's painful, sitting on the phone, dealing with the piles of paper etc. ... I hate it, but there's always savings to be had. Sometimes, negligible, other times, quite sizable. But you will not know, unless you get on the phone ...
    Sorry for the lack of clarity - I was mentioning my renewal has already come in and fortunately there was barely a change in my rate. So no need to look around yet, I'm just thinking down the road if it does raise significantly and I do need to switch companies.

  14. #34
    slowbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,660

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by Krime View Post
    As a result, I was told by my insurance agent that since I'm 0% at fault I will have no issue shopping for insurance elsewhere down the road. Had I have been 50-100% at fault, I'd be stuck with them. Now reading this makes me wonder.
    I had no idea this was on my Insurance record (autoplus record) until I got my renewal and saw that my rates increased, and I asked why. My broker told me that it was because of my Motorcycle accident because I was partially at fault. When I told her that should be incorrect she looked again and was like, oh wait never mind.
    Then every other insurance company/broker I would call would look up my record and they would all say the same thing.
    "Your motorcycle accident shows you as being 0% at fault. But when we look up the claim and under other losses it shows 20% fault claimed by the other parties insurance so we are gonna treat that as a partially at fault accident."

    Only 1 broker mentioned that I couldn't be rated for anything under 25% at that was Vinnie from Allstate. He PM'd me on this forum.
    Plus, the rule is, if you're under 25% At-Fault then you deemed NOT-AT-FAULT. And you cannot be surcharged for that.
    Since he was the only one to mention that I wasn't sure if it was accurate but he seems to know his stuff. Next renewal I'll check with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krime View Post
    Sorry for the lack of clarity - I was mentioning my renewal has already come in and fortunately there was barely a change in my rate. So no need to look around yet, I'm just thinking down the road if it does raise significantly and I do need to switch companies.
    Yeah I don't think you can switch before your renewal without facing some $$ penalties.
    -Matt
    2000 VFR800 INTERCEPTOR

    2005 VFR800 Interceptor (sold)
    1997 VFR750F (SMIDSY victim)
    1986 VFR750F Honda Interceptor (sold)
    1986 VF500F Honda Interceptor (sold)


  15. #35
    Akad3m1kz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Brampton
    Posts
    138

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by walhalla View Post
    I have had one accident and it is much the same story. The police report said it was not my fault the other person was even charged, but my insurance company's "investigation" said it was my fault

    Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
    Insurance companies rate you based on fault determination rules. Definitely not what the police charge you or the other party.

  16. #36
    slowbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,660

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by Akad3m1kz View Post
    Insurance companies rate you based on fault determination rules. Definitely not what the police charge you or the other party.
    Yeah it's a common misconception that Police determine fault. Problem is, from my experience, they sometimes make insanely ridiculous fault determinations like mine.
    -Matt
    2000 VFR800 INTERCEPTOR

    2005 VFR800 Interceptor (sold)
    1997 VFR750F (SMIDSY victim)
    1986 VFR750F Honda Interceptor (sold)
    1986 VF500F Honda Interceptor (sold)


  17. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    York
    Posts
    5,386

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by meme View Post
    Some one else wrote off my car and I wasn't in it.

    Still reading thru but there may be a distinction between policy owner and occupants of vehicle when assigning fault.
    In this area vehicles are insured, not drivers. So if someone causes an accident with your car it goes on your insurance record. But you cannot be charged since you were not driving. The charge would go on the driver's record, not the owner's.

    Quote Originally Posted by walhalla View Post
    I have had one accident and it is much the same story. The police report said it was not my fault the other person was even charged, but my insurance company's "investigation" said it was my fault

    Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
    Police have almost nothing to do with assigning fault. If the other person is charged it helps your case but the fault determination rules are mostly what is followed. I've had police twice tell me not to bother making a claim because they said it would be 50/50 fault. They were wrong both those times.

    If I were OP I'd be hiring a lawyer.
    2009 Red Aprilia RS125 (14k, just rebuilt for the 3rd time) | 1987 Red Porsche 944 N/A 5 spd (297k, Miller MAF) | 2005 Silver Mitsubishi Outlander AWD 5 spd (229k, 3rd transmission)
    PM to buy some ACF-50 rust protection spray.

  18. #38
    nakkers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    St Kitt's mainly, London, ON sometimes
    Posts
    2,561

    Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    This "at fault" business is confusing.

    In regards to insurance in Ontario, the coverage purchased is for no fault. And all that means is, you buy coverage and the insurance company takes care of you. At fault or not, you deal with your insurance company to handle your claim. There is some
    Fine print and limits etc. But, essentially that is it.

    If you are found to be at fault, depending on what %, it may or may not have any impact on your rates upon renewal or shopping for coverage elsewhere.

    If you are 20% at fault from a claims perspectives, it shouldn't affect your premiums at renewal. However, it may. Not sure what can be done?

    Just like the person that is involved in multiple incidents and faced no charges and not found at fault by police, they are statically likely to experience another occurrence. So they pay more.

    The legal fault determination impacts your licence, fines, charges etc. And indeed will be a factor in determining the premiums you pay.

    Clear as mud.

    The government tooted its horn years ago about the automobile insurance for Ontario as being no fault insurance being better for everyone. Folks didn't have to worry about making a claim against other parties involved and dealing with lawyers, court, waiting for benefits etc.

    No matter of fault, if you report a claim, there is a record.

    This is why it's important to have a good broker that will advocate for you and know the business to help you. Some are better than others.

    It's not just a matter of the cheapest quote. Some are excellent at handling claims and others are terrible.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by nakkers; 05-19-2017 at 09:38 AM.

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oshawa/Thornhill
    Posts
    2,665

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    OP, you mention you tried to get resolution with this via the Ombuds person. I assume you are talking about your companies ombuds person? Each company has an Ombuds person, (who is employed by and paid by THAT insurance company).

    Your next step, would be to contact the FSCO, (Financial Services Commission of Ontario), they are the government regulators. Explain the circumstances and ask them to look into it.

    Now IF they, (FSCO), come back and explain that it is permitted in that, (the other driver's insurance company), are permitted to do this under their underwriting guidelines. Each company offering insurance in Ontario MUST file with the FSCO, their underwriting rules, (basically that insurance companies set of operating rules, IE what lines of insurance they will be offering and under what circumstances etc).

    I would point out to the FSCO, that the insurance company, assigning the fault is NOT YOUR insurer and as such, YOU should not be bound by their underwriting guidelines as you are NOT their client. Now, keep in mind your dealing with a bureaucrat, so logical thinking may not be part of the equation..lol Use the example of... It would be like you purchase an item from Walmart, your not satisfied with the products performance and when you go to return it Canadian Tire suddenly shows up and says Walmart won't take it back under their, (Cdn tire), rules...lmao You have NO relationship with Cdn Tire, therefore, Cdn Tire can't enforce their rues on the transaction. Will be interesting to see how they respond to that.

  20. #40
    slowbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,660

    Re: Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

    Quote Originally Posted by hedo2002 View Post
    OP, you mention you tried to get resolution with this via the Ombuds person. I assume you are talking about your companies ombuds person? Each company has an Ombuds person, (who is employed by and paid by THAT insurance company).

    Your next step, would be to contact the FSCO, (Financial Services Commission of Ontario), they are the government regulators.
    Yes sir. I have been dealing with the Ombuds of my insurance company. So I'm still in step 1 of the process. I've requested the letter stating the company's final position on this situation. When I get that I go to the FSCO.
    -Matt
    2000 VFR800 INTERCEPTOR

    2005 VFR800 Interceptor (sold)
    1997 VFR750F (SMIDSY victim)
    1986 VFR750F Honda Interceptor (sold)
    1986 VF500F Honda Interceptor (sold)


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •