Seriously, what is up with multiple vehicle rates? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Seriously, what is up with multiple vehicle rates?

D

drumstyx

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
I'd almost be alright with Ontario's ludicrous insurance rates, of not for the fact the I pay practically double for 2 vehicles.

Insurance experts/insiders: how the heck is this justified? I have 3 vehicles, all of which have accident benefits coverage. Obviously I don't get 3x the limit when I make a claim, so what the heck am I paying for? Make the coverage argument for single vehicle rates, sure, but the US has it right when it comes to multiple vehicles. First one should cost whatever $1500, but the second and third should be no more than a $50 admin fee.

Prove me wrong.
 
So they can make more money to either profit or cover for fraud lol
 
Who are you with? A buddy of mine had two cars several years ago and the second one only raised his premium by like $5 /mo. Dont' remember who he was with though.
 
AF4iK said:
Who are you with? A buddy of mine had two cars several years ago and the second one only raised his premium by like $5 /mo. Dont' remember who he was with though.
Click to expand...

Wawanesa. Certainly seems to be the norm though, so the question really is who am I not with that I need to be. I'd pay a 50% increase on my main policy if it meant that the remainders are cheap
 
Did you insure one of the two vehicles as a recreational vehicle? And just shop around dude, insurance is a competitive industries, they always have discounts to attract new businesses and ding you a bit on the renewal.
 
When I was recently shopping around for insurance on two bikes. Everyone I spoke to counted it as two separate quotes added up. No discount that I could see.
 
I asked about multi-vehicle when I got my first bike, but they said it is multi-car or multi-bike. That said, they did give me a bit of a break for having multiple policies with the same company.

I do agree though, there should be further discounts if there are two plated vehicles in a household with only 1 driver/rider. I can't be on both at the same time.
 
To make it all worse, I have 5 bikes. They will not insure a bike AT ALL unless it has a full auto policy. That means I can't put fire and theft on the 3 bikes I have off the road. They want me to pay $1500 each bike, with full coverage, just so I can get fire and theft on my project bikes.

I can sort of understand when we compare Canadian and US rates, and the insider argument is coverage (though it's very much not valid, as proven by equal or better policies in equal markets being much cheaper)

So I call out again to the industry insiders: Give me your reasoning and prove me wrong, or join our cause!
 
Last edited:
I never understood this either. Let's say you have 2 vehicles and there is only one driver. Well, you can only operate one vehicle at a time so why pay for full coverage on both vehicles. I failed insurance math in school too.
 
drumstyx said:
To make it all worse, I have 5 bikes. They will not insure a bike AT ALL unless it has a full auto policy. That means I can't put fire and theft on the 3 bikes I have off the road. They want me to pay $1500 each bike, with full coverage, just so I can get fire and theft on my project bikes.

I can sort of understand when we compare Canadian and US rates, and the insider argument is coverage (though it's very much not valid, as proven by equal or better policies in equal markets being much cheaper)

So I call out again to the industry insiders: Give me your reasoning and prove me wrong, or join our cause!
Click to expand...

They don't have to tell you anything. They just sit back and grin.
 
nobbie48 said:
They don't have to tell you anything. They just sit back and grin.
Click to expand...
From what my friend who's been in insurance for a while explained to me. Auto insurance is pretty regulated, so any major rate changes need to be approved by the provincial gov't with detail proof showing why they want to change the rates. For auto insurance, while being the largest market in Canada, is not that profitable of a sector by itself, and in fact loses a bit of money in certain provinces. However, insurance companies will continue to write policies in these not-so-profitable provinces or categories because they need more policies to spread their risk by writing between different provinces, and different type of insurance (e.g. auto vs house vs commercial). Imagine a scenario where you crashed your $50k car, let's assume you pay $2k/yr for insurance, it would take you 25 years of premium to "repay" that $50k replacement cost, or would need 24 other drivers paying $2k each to repay that $50k. That's only if your car is the only damage involved, but if you drove that $50k car into a $300k house damaging it's structural integrity or if you ran over someone and get sued for $2M, imagine how many other policies they need to cover those losses.

If you want to see if you are being gouged, you can look at how profitable insurance companies are. Insurance company measures their effectiveness/profitability based on COR (combined ratio), which is basically (losses+expense / earned premium). For example, for Intact, if you look at their financial results, they have a combined ratio of 96.3% in 2014. If you translate that, that means for every $1 the insurance premium dollar they take in, $0.963 goes out to pay out losses and/or expenses. Now of course, insurance companies also makes money by investing the money they get from collecting premium, and in Intact's case, they made a 3.7% return on their investment gains. Now if you just simplify the numbers here, do you think Intact is that profitable with a 3.7% leftover from covering expenses/losses and another 3.7% from investing is that profitable? On the books, that totals about a 10% net profit margin, that's not a crazy amount of profit.

So really, to have cheaper insurance rates, they need to do a combination of paying out less losses (or somehow trim the cost of losses), cut expense, collect more premium or make riskier investment.
 
TD Meloche Monnex give me a discount for having a recreational vehicle alongside a regular vehicule (car)

And also have the house with them... basically my moto costs me about $2-300 less / year because of that.
 
thephenom said:
From what my friend who's been in insurance for a while explained to me. Auto insurance is pretty regulated, so any major rate changes need to be approved by the provincial gov't with detail proof showing why they want to change the rates. For auto insurance, while being the largest market in Canada, is not that profitable of a sector by itself, and in fact loses a bit of money in certain provinces. However, insurance companies will continue to write policies in these not-so-profitable provinces or categories because they need more policies to spread their risk by writing between different provinces, and different type of insurance (e.g. auto vs house vs commercial). Imagine a scenario where you crashed your $50k car, let's assume you pay $2k/yr for insurance, it would take you 25 years of premium to "repay" that $50k replacement cost, or would need 24 other drivers paying $2k each to repay that $50k. That's only if your car is the only damage involved, but if you drove that $50k car into a $300k house damaging it's structural integrity or if you ran over someone and get sued for $2M, imagine how many other policies they need to cover those losses.

If you want to see if you are being gouged, you can look at how profitable insurance companies are. Insurance company measures their effectiveness/profitability based on COR (combined ratio), which is basically (losses+expense / earned premium). For example, for Intact, if you look at their financial results, they have a combined ratio of 96.3% in 2014. If you translate that, that means for every $1 the insurance premium dollar they take in, $0.963 goes out to pay out losses and/or expenses. Now of course, insurance companies also makes money by investing the money they get from collecting premium, and in Intact's case, they made a 3.7% return on their investment gains. Now if you just simplify the numbers here, do you think Intact is that profitable with a 3.7% leftover from covering expenses/losses and another 3.7% from investing is that profitable? On the books, that totals about a 10% net profit margin, that's not a crazy amount of profit.

So really, to have cheaper insurance rates, they need to do a combination of paying out less losses (or somehow trim the cost of losses), cut expense, collect more premium or make riskier investment.
Click to expand...

10% profit is a crazy amount in this market. Consider that's AFTER paying wages and overhead; it's literally just extra money...3% would be more reasonable with the economy as it is.

Regardless, the average isn't the issue. Multi vehicle owners are a vast minority, and we get screwed because of it. If we didn't get screwed, we might skew that average profit 0.001%, and we'd be much happier. But of course, 0.001% is still at least a few hundred thousand, and well, they aren't just going to give that up.

LePhillou said:
TD Meloche Monnex give me a discount for having a recreational vehicle alongside a regular vehicule (car)

And also have the house with them... basically my moto costs me about $2-300 less / year because of that.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, they'll give you a token amount, but it should be a 95% discount, not a 10-50% discount.
 
JZ67 said:
I never understood this either. Let's say you have 2 vehicles and there is only one driver. Well, you can only operate one vehicle at a time so why pay for full coverage on both vehicles. I failed insurance math in school too.
Click to expand...

that's because you can lend your bike to a buddy. Now you have 2 bikes on the road for the price of one.
 
drumstyx said:
Oh sure, they'll give you a token amount, but it should be a 95% discount, not a 10-50% discount.
Click to expand...
But to play devil's advocate, if me and wifey are paying "one coverage" for different vehicles and like it might happen sometimes, she takes the car, i take the moto and we both get in the same accident (say a pile up), how is the one coverage gonna take care of both vehicles being damaged?
 
Splash said:
that's because you can lend your bike to a buddy. Now you have 2 bikes on the road for the price of one.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't take a lot of paperwork to deny coverage if anyone but the listed owner was riding the bike. That already sort of exists (Code 28?) where a high risk driver lives in the same place.

The insurance companies make a valid point that judges are reluctant to let victims suffer so even though the insurer could be found not financially responsible they still have to pay out because they have deeper pockets. They can go after the scam artist but if he doesn't have assets it's wasted effort.
 
nobbie48 said:
It wouldn't take a lot of paperwork to deny coverage if anyone but the listed owner was riding the bike. That already sort of exists (Code 28?) where a high risk driver lives in the same place.

The insurance companies make a valid point that judges are reluctant to let victims suffer so even though the insurer could be found not financially responsible they still have to pay out because they have deeper pockets. They can go after the scam artist but if he doesn't have assets it's wasted effort.
Click to expand...
Yeah i checked with 2-3 different companies and the wifey has to be insured OR excluded if we live at the same address.
 
nobbie48 said:
It wouldn't take a lot of paperwork to deny coverage if anyone but the listed owner was riding the bike. That already sort of exists (Code 28?) where a high risk driver lives in the same place.
Click to expand...

I never said the same house... My buddy doesn't live in my house. It's not against your policy to let someone else ride your bike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom