Accident Benefits | GTAMotorcycle.com

Accident Benefits

przphoto

New member
I ride and I drive, separate policies, same broker/underwriter. No matter how rationally I pose the question nobody can explain why accident benefits are paid per vehicle. I asked to have a single policy with bike and car together but am told it wouldn't change that I pay accident benefits per vehicle. Is the broker being honest? I have long years of coverage without claims, moving violations etc., have max. rating yet... have home insurance with same broker/underwriter.

Love to have another bike but another $650 in accident benefits is insulting and unjustified. T.O Star published an article yesterday that, in part discussed the future of accident benefits, in particular their mandatory status and whether or not that would change, become the operators choice in which case coverage for one vehicle would be enough (unless, checking in to the hospital with whatever injury the former "is this the result of a motor vehicle accident" becomes "is this the result of an accident on your first bike, your second or your car" and then we really are being bent over with no apologies). Anyways, just curious as to your experience(s).
 

Trials

Well-known member
Ridiculous isn't it!

It's a government mandated thing: Law Document English View
... if you can figure out why I require this for a motorcycle related accident and not for an oops! I tripped and fell, or a bicycle type accident let me know.

I like this part "(c) an optometrist, if the impairment is one that an optometrist is authorized by law to treat,"
:/ an optometrist is not an ophthalmologist, an ophthalmologist is the medical doctor that treats eyes.
 

JavaFan

gringo diablo
Site Supporter
it's been discussed ad nauseam here
glad to see someone else with the same concern

the fact that it's a mandatory coverage at all is my beef

Dougie will fix it
it's easy
look how well buck a beer worked out
 

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
it's been discussed ad nauseam here
glad to see someone else with the same concern

the fact that it's a mandatory coverage at all is my beef

Dougie will fix it
it's easy
look how well buck a beer worked out
The whole thing is crap in a basket. The insurer decides on when you're fixed up well enough. What your arm or leg is worth etc.

In the case of when you're not at fault you have to use up any rehab benefits that you paid for* before the insurer coughs up. Why the *^%&** doesn't the bad driver's insurer cover it?

* A company benefit plan is a taxable benefit. The company just handles the paperwork and gets you a discount. It is income.
 

K20EF8

Well-known member
Insurance in Ontario is a racket.
If I have 2 cars and 2 bikes, I should be able to sign an endorsement stating only myself can operate them. Then I should be able to pay comp on all 4 but only the liability/accident benefits portion on the vehicle with the highest risk. Add in a small admin charge and that should be it. This nonsense of paying 4 sets of liabilities etc etc is a joke.

The government could fix the insurance industry here but turns a blind eye.
 

K20EF8

Well-known member
it's been discussed ad nauseam here
glad to see someone else with the same concern

the fact that it's a mandatory coverage at all is my beef

Dougie will fix it
it's easy
look how well buck a beer worked out
I hope he will fix it.

Its also time to change motorcycling in this province. Graduated licensing system like they do in other parts of the world. It should be minimum 5 years riding before your allowed to own a 600+ SS or 3 years if your over 25 years old.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Insurance in Ontario is a racket.
If I have 2 cars and 2 bikes, I should be able to sign an endorsement stating only myself can operate them. Then I should be able to pay comp on all 4 but only the liability/accident benefits portion on the vehicle with the highest risk. Add in a small admin charge and that should be it. This nonsense of paying 4 sets of liabilities etc etc is a joke.

The government could fix the insurance industry here but turns a blind eye.
Hell, you could even have a system where you could self-report other drivers. You call or use an app or whatever before they take the vehicle to get a 24 hour pass. You get 5 passes a year. Easy peasy. That would cover the number of times other people drive my vehicles. As you've said, there is no political will to make any substantial change (or more likely, there is more political will to support the current cartel than there is for substantial change).
 
Last edited:

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Hell, you could even have a system where you could self-report other drivers. You call or use an app or whatever before they take the vehicle to get a 24 hour pass. You get 5 passes a year. Easy peasy. That would cover the number of times other people drive my vehicles. As you've said, there is no political will to make any substantial change (or more likely, there is more political will to support the current cartel than their is for substantial change).
The insurance industry won't let the government do anything that that negatively affects their profits. We know who's in charge.

Wynne's 15% reduction promise (That never went anywhere) is an indication of the stupidity of anyone that thought that it would be of benefit to any driver. A government can not order a private company to reduce their prices without allowing them to reduce what they provide, regardless of whether it's insurance or a loaf of bread. If the discount went through the insurers would reduce payouts even further.
 

pfbmgd

Well-known member
Insurance companies run the government . I have been hearing the FIX coming for 30 plus years .
 

Top Bottom