Non-fault accident but still "at-fault"

slowbird

slowbird

Well-known member
I posted this in my other thread about switching insurances, yet the answer to one of the problems has revealed a really sneaky and complete ******** insurance component that I think more people need to know about. Also, it got lost easily in the other thread and I'm curious if anyone else has heard of this and if some of our local insurance experts can comment on it.

So I was in a Motorcycle accident a year ago. A car cut infront of me. Driver got an unsafe lane change ticket. Insurance deemed me not at fault and covered all the damages, physio etc.

Fast forward to a couple months ago and I am trying to shop around for insurance. I was being told that even though that accident showed 0% at fault, the other parties insurance listed me as 20% at fault. In dealing with the Ombudsman regarding this oddity I learned something new about insurance insanity.

Turns out in regards to my motorcycle accident, both my insurance and the other parties insurance agree I am 0% at fault...for the property damage. However, the separate component to the claim which involves bodily injury, the other insurance company have decided I am 20% at fault for that. The Ombuds office is trying to get them to bring it down to 10% but they will not budge besides that.
So to make that clear. My insurance company says I am not at fault for the entire accident. Period.
Other parties insurance says I'm not at fault for the accident but 20% at fault for the bodily injury component of the claim.

So it turns out even if you are not at fault for an accident the insurance companies can still screw you by deciding you are at fault for other "components" of the claim. (for the record I was fully geared up from head to toe. New Shoei Helmet. New armored Jacket. Armored riding Pants, and new full length Dianese touring boots)

The Ombuds office also told me that Ontario regulation 36/10 prohibits insurance companies for rating on anything below 25% at fault. So all the insurance companies I called for quotes (TD for example) and some brokers I spoke to, including some I spoke to on this forum, were....lets say mistaken when they rated my motorcycle accident against me, since they are prohibited to do so since it was under 25%.

So the Ombuds says there isn't anything I can do about it. Unifund insurance, which the cager that hit me is part of, for some reason thinks I'm 20% at fault for the bodily injuries. Maybe they think it's my fault for riding a Motorcycle to begin with?
Or maybe being fully geared up on a bright red motorcycle wasn't conspicuous enough? :rolleyes:

Also this will be on my insurance record FOR LIFE. Which means every year when I shop around I will have to explain this situation over and over and will have to remind insurance companies that they can't use that 10-20% at fault against me, even though they will because they can do whatever they want.
I did get a Letter Of Experience but who knows how well it will work when the time comes or what other sneaky loop holes will count against me.

Has anyone ever heard of this insanity before?
 
Last edited:
I am aware that we are creeping in this direction. A couple of weeks ago there was a ruling on a bus driver who was hit at an intersection by a drunk driver. He was found 20% at fault for the accident simply because he was a professional driver. It seems they have been sneaking in the idea that if you don't do every conceivable thing you can to prevent the accident, you are partially at fault. In this case, the insurance company would clearly argue that your choice to ride a motorcycle made you partially at fault for your injury. It is something that absolutely needs to be challenged to the higher courts. In your case, I would have a lawyer send a letter to the original insurance company that has libeled you, because libel is pretty much what it is.
 
This makes absolutely no sense and I'd be furious if that happened to me. This is the "victim blaming" equivalent of the insurance industry. Have you thought of sending a letter in to one of the Moto journalists at the Globe and Mail or something like that?
 
slowbird said:
The Ombuds office also told me that Ontario regulation 36/10 prohibits insurance companies for rating on anything below 25% at fault. So all the insurance companies I called for quotes (TD for example) and some brokers I spoke to, including some I spoke to on this forum, were....lets say mistaken when they rated my motorcycle accident against me, since they are prohibited to do so since it was under 25%.
Click to expand...

Be upfront and insistent with whoever is doing the quote and preemptively remind them that the claim was <25% and ensure they're not rating you for it. If they are, hang up and move on...

slowbird said:
Also this will be on my insurance record FOR LIFE. Which means every year when I shop around I will have to explain this situation over and over
Click to expand...

Accidents can only effect your rates for 6 years. Some insurance companies may vary that as well - some may only hold them against you for 5 years for rates, but might require 6 or 7 (or sometimes more) years from an at-fault claim before any accident-forgiveness may be reinstated, if that's offered. Our (car) insurance company for example only holds claims against us for 5 years but require 7 years before they will reinstate accident forgiveness again, assuming that was "consumed" during the at-fault.

Yes, your "permanent" abstract will show it forever but insurance companies cannot access that. They can however see your AutoPlus report which also shows every claim, licence/insurance cancellation, etc - to the beginning of time...but my experience (multiple times) is that things that shouldn't be held against you (as per above paragraph), are not - I have claims in my past that have come and gone and insurance rates adjusted as expected.

In short, after 6 years this is nothing to worry much about anymore, although a new insurer may not be willing to offer you accident forgiveness for a few years beyond that, again, if that's something they even offer anyways.

We are with BelAir and I suspect I might be able to find a slightly cheaper policy elsewhere for our cars now, but I value that accident forgiveness so I'm reluctant to change insurers to save $100/year only to end up paying that back 100x over if we got into an accident 6 months later as most insurance companies that even do offer AF only offer it to longer-tenure customers. Both my wife and I have benefited from the AF once each over the 18 or so years we've been with them and I'm confident (both accidents having been 100% at-fault, one of them a fairly serious dollar amount) we would have ended up paying more in the long run without it.
 
Last edited:
You are right insurance companies cannot rate any AF accident if it is less than 25% AF. Now if on Auto Plus it shows AF accident then every year if you want to move the insurance companies the new company might ask you to provide letter for experience to show that you insurance company rated you as Not at fault.
 
humsafar77 said:
You are right insurance companies cannot rate any AF accident if it is less than 25% AF. Now if on Auto Plus it shows AF accident then every year if you want to move the insurance companies the new company might ask you to provide letter for experience to show that you insurance company rated you as Not at fault.
Click to expand...

Ahhh....see. I shouldn't have to show them anything because the autoplus shows that my insurance company has rated me as not at fault. Then under the same claim, it shows the other parties insurance has me as 20% under other losses. So by law the insurance companies shouldn't even need to ask me for the letter as it is beneath 25%. But they still will won't they. Because they can do whatever they want.

jc100 said:
This makes absolutely no sense and I'd be furious if that happened to me. This is the "victim blaming" equivalent of the insurance industry. Have you thought of sending a letter in to one of the Moto journalists at the Globe and Mail or something like that?
Click to expand...

I'm not really familiar with any Moto journalists. Can you recommend any?

Roadghost said:
In your case, I would have a lawyer send a letter to the original insurance company that has libeled you, because libel is pretty much what it is.
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about going the lawyer route but the time and money is making me think twice.
 
Here's the thing...
Ins. companies are not in the business to pay out claims and be your friend in time of need. They are beheld only to themselves and their share holders.
Any justification to deny a claim or raise a rate is... Justified.
 
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
 
Complete opposite. 100 percent not at fault but liable. Hasn't been used in my ratings (and I was told it couldn't be according to SF's rules via my agent).

Edit just read more policy stuff and it does make a difference whether you were physically involved in accident. Small print!
 
Last edited:
"...every year when I shop around..."

Is it normal to be shopping around for new insurance every year?
 
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.
 
meme said:
.... it does make a difference whether you were physically involved in accident. Small print!
Click to expand...

How could you not be physically involved in an accident you are in???


...or is it in relation to above...policy owner and occupants of vehicle?
 
meme said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh right, that situation I am a little aware of.
 
Blackfin said:
"...every year when I shop around..."

Is it normal to be shopping around for new insurance every year?
Click to expand...

Maybe not every year, but at least every two. I always find someone willing to offer more coverage for less. No customer loyalty in the ins world, so why be loyal to them.
 
Neil_V said:
No customer loyalty in the ins world, so why be loyal to them.
Click to expand...

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.
 
walhalla said:
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
Click to expand...

My situation is not the same to yours at all.

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.

Riceburner said:
and that's how they can keep screwing the public. Most can't go after them enough to get it straightened out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, part of me wants to fight for the principle of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom