Changes coming July 1

[nobbie48]

It looks like car insurance has some opt out choices available down the road but will they be available for bikes.

Ontario Auto Insurance Changes

As of July 1, 2026, some accident benefits that were previously included in every Ontario auto insurance policy will be optional. Here’s what you need to know when purchasing a policy, or when it’s time to renew.

www.ibc.ca

The worrisome part is some people may cut coverage and pay for it for the rest of their lives or become dependent on the taxpayer.

IMO the savings don't justify the loss in coverage.

I can't help but feel if you want to add coverage it costs an arm and leg. If you cut coverage they only give you the finger.

 

[Jampy00]

Momentary gains for lifetime pains.

 

[AllistonGT]

Depends. I'm soon to be retired. I don't need income replacement or caregiver benefits. No need for housekeeping or home maintenance coverage. My estate would cover me and my wife's funeral.

I also don't purchase life insurance for my appliances.

 

[Hardwrkr13]

It will certainly be interesting to see if a typical insured party will be able to save money with these changes or if they get hosed. I suspect the latter but I'm an optimistic person so I'll wait and see.

 

[nobbie48]

It will certainly be interesting to see if a typical insured party will be able to save money with these changes or if they get hosed. I suspect the latter but I'm an optimistic person so I'll wait and see.

I seemed to think the savings were in the 10% range so a couple of hundred dollars per year for many so a very small bag of groceries for many.

The catch 22 is the hook bait is most tempting to those that that can't afford the risk.

If you're about to retire, have a plump RRSP or RRIF, a paid for home and no debt you might not need the savings any more than you worry about your yearly coffee tab.

I can't help but wonder if this is a distraction from the obscenity of our current policies.

1) Why does the victim have to pay for for enhanced income replacement when they are not at fault? The bar is set at below the minimum wage level.

1a) You don't get paid for the first week.

1b) You get 70% of your gross up to a max of $400.

2) Why does the victim have to lose out on trade in value because of diminished value caused by someone else?

3) Why does the not-at-fault victim have to use up the rehab benefits they paid for before the insurer has to take on the burden. If those benefits were part of a workplace benefit you will note that you are taxed on them as if they are income.

3a) If after you've used up your workplace benefits you need physio for a non collision incident (The purpose of the benefits) YOU have to pay for them out of pocket.

Why doesn't the burden fall on the bad driver?