Desjardins denies claim due to modifications | GTAMotorcycle.com

Desjardins denies claim due to modifications

Superveloce

Well-known member
Site Supporter

Sebi

Don't call me Shirley
Site Supporter
I was just about to post this. What a load of crap.
So the guy is paying $600/month since the insurance company deems him high risk. (with a sub 200hp car... give me a break) When something happens, which is what insurance is supposed to be there for, they deny the claim. Because he had an aftermarket exhaust?! Disgusting behavior...Some sort of reform is needed.

I'm not saying this guy is particularly bright, 21 years old leasing a BRZ he can barely afford and paying $7200 on insurance. But this sets an immensely dangerous precedent. Denied coverage for modifications which are irrelevant to the accident. Let's say you tint your windows then get in an accident. You could have your coverage denied. Sounds stupid, but insurance will try to find any way out of a claim that they can. So if you make a modification to your vehicle it seems you have 2 choices:
1) Don't tell insurance and face the possibility of denied coverage
2) Tell insurance and pay some ******** extra premium for your modification.

If the modification has nothing to do with the accident, it should not be legal for insurance to deny coverage. Similarly if you buy a car and tint your windows, if your motor blows up, they cannot deny warranty coverage on the motor.
 

POWERMAN

Well-known member
"after Global News contacted the company about Ayobi’s case, Desjardins Insurance reviewed the claim and has agreed to pay in full"

Does this mean public exposure in order to strong arm them is the only way to get what is owed to you?
F*** these insurance companies.


I remember a few years ago when I got rear ended (~8k in damage):
attachment.php


- the body shop I use (I have a long standing relationship with them) told me that the insurance adjuster checked and double checked to see whether my car had winter tires.
Even though I had winter tires on at the time - I got mad when I heard that...the fact that the insurance company would try to f*** me over even when I was not responsible for the collision despite paying them for full comprehensive insurance.

Something has to be done about this kind of day light robbery.

Edit - did you know that license plates are not covered under insurance policies?
I ended up paying out of pocket to replace my plates as I think the lady who hit me claimed she couldn't spare the extra dough to cover the cost.
I even reached out to General Insurance Ombudservice (GIO) | Dispute Resolution for Canadian Insurance Complaints - fat lot of good they were...
 
Last edited:

Sebi

Don't call me Shirley
Site Supporter
Even though I had winter tires on at the time - I got mad when I heard that...the fact that the insurance company would try to f*** me over even when I was not responsible for the collision despite paying them for full comprehensive insurance.

Something has to be done about this kind of day light robbery.
Disgusting, imagine them denying coverage because you were on summer tires (for whatever reason). If YOU caused an accident, I could see the logic in denying a claim, however you getting rear ended; how are tires relevant?! If anything, if you have crappier tires you have a longer stopping distance which gives the person behind MORE time to react.

My dad was also involved in a collision a few years back where he got rear ended by some guy rubber necking an accident scene across a few lanes. Insurance found him 0% at fault but wrote the car off. Getting the a fair claim value out of the company was like pulling teeth.

I really wish we had better options available.
 

TwistedKestrel

King of GTAM
Site Supporter
I'm like 70% sure that denying a claim on the basis is complete BS and would not stand up. I could see them "only" paying out for a stock replacement (which probably costs the same anyway) but I really don't think they can deny a claim on maybe the extra 2hp you would get from such an exhaust
 

ReSTored

Well-known member
The problem here is that you enter into a contract with an insurance company and they have aggressive claims adjusters who are motivated to minimize payouts. When something happens the adjuster reviews the policy and the fine print to find a way to reduce or eliminate their liability.

Did you tell them you use winter tires and got a discount on your policy for this? From the picture, it is clearly winter time and the tires should be on the car. If they are not, then you misrepresented your intent and took a discount you were not entitled to. People may think no problem here, just charge me back for the snow tire discount I took and pay my claim. The insurance company has a completely different viewpoint on this and their perspective is that the contract is null and void and they are not going to pay out at all, saving big bucks.

You hear a lot about people who have purchased medical travel insurance, did not disclose all pre-existing conditions, paid a certain premium, had an incident not related to the undisclosed conditions and then find their claim denied. Same type of issue.

The average person is in no position to fight back on this as it is very costly and time consuming. They can deny your claim with the stroke of the pen and then the onus is 100% on you to fight back.
 

Roadghost

Well-known member
To me, if an insurance company agrees to insure you then they should have to pay. They don't have to renew if they think you're a risk, but once they take your money that's it. I have never understood why the government hasn't stepped in to stop this sort of rip-off.
 

otwo_91

Active member
The insurance company should need to prove that the accident was directly the result of undisclosed modifications and that their insured is the one who is at fault.

Otherwise pay back all the money the person had been paying since they started their insurance, since they apparently were not covered to begin with.
 

TK4

Well-known member
Blame No Fault - it puts you on the fuzzy end of the lollipop no matter what. My car got rear ended a couple of years ago $4K cosmetic damage (nothing structural) and my insurance company wrote it off. I offered to settle on the agreed payout, then buy it back and have the repairs done on my own. They nixed that, saying they had a contract with a wrecker to buy all their salvage. Instead of agreeing with me they dicked around for over a month, paid storage fees to the body shop and the cost of my rental car. When I pointed out that they would have save a bunch of time and $$$ by accepting my offer in the first place the adjuster just laughed and said 'that's not how it works'.
As a result, I had to go find a replacement vehicle, was out of pocket for way more than the necessary repairs and went through a whole lot of inconvenience.
Insurance companies, lawyers, tow truck drivers and auto body shops are not your friends...
 

Baggsy

Well-known member
Site Supporter
For the insurance company misrepresenting what's on your vehicle is insurance fraud.
They can raise their rates to offset the cost of insurance fraud.
In the meantime they have to show that they're doing something to combat insurance fraud.
Denying these claims counts for them as combating insurance fraud.

Make sure you're following your policy.
 

Superveloce

Well-known member
Site Supporter
To me, if an insurance company agrees to insure you then they should have to pay. They don't have to renew if they think you're a risk, but once they take your money that's it. I have never understood why the government hasn't stepped in to stop this sort of rip-off.
Yeah forget that whole contract thing just pay all claims ...great idea ....you do understand that the insurer and the client must abide by the contract. Money exchanging hands isn’t the be all end all .
 

Superveloce

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The insurance company should need to prove that the accident was directly the result of undisclosed modifications and that their insured is the one who is at fault.

Otherwise pay back all the money the person had been paying since they started their insurance, since they apparently were not covered to begin with.
The client didn’t honour the contract . The insurer has to prove nothing ...read your insurance documents and understand them, ignorance isn’t a defence
 

Superveloce

Well-known member
Site Supporter
The problem here is that you enter into a contract with an insurance company and they have aggressive claims adjusters who are motivated to minimize payouts. When something happens the adjuster reviews the policy and the fine print to find a way to reduce or eliminate their liability.

Did you tell them you use winter tires and got a discount on your policy for this? From the picture, it is clearly winter time and the tires should be on the car. If they are not, then you misrepresented your intent and took a discount you were not entitled to. People may think no problem here, just charge me back for the snow tire discount I took and pay my claim. The insurance company has a completely different viewpoint on this and their perspective is that the contract is null and void and they are not going to pay out at all, saving big bucks.

You hear a lot about people who have purchased medical travel insurance, did not disclose all pre-existing conditions, paid a certain premium, had an incident not related to the undisclosed conditions and then find their claim denied. Same type of issue.

The average person is in no position to fight back on this as it is very costly and time consuming. They can deny your claim with the stroke of the pen and then the onus is 100% on you to fight back.
Correct. Just like anything both sides have to honour the contract
 

Aens

Well-known member
It'd be nice if they went after insurance companies again. It's probably the only topic where I've never heard a positive conversation or outcome. The most positive conversation being a, "thankfully they paid out in the end".

If only those absolutely bogus commercials about post accident customer service weren't straight out of a sci Fi/fantasy movie. The cackle of hyenas they conduct themselves as.

Why not just vertically integrate with the pia firms too so they can maximize shareholder returns.
 

Roadghost

Well-known member
Yeah forget that whole contract thing just pay all claims ...great idea ....you do understand that the insurer and the client must abide by the contract. Money exchanging hands isn’t the be all end all .

The terms of the contract have to be laid out at the time you are insured, and they're rarely clear on that on the phone, mailing you a contract AFTER they take your money. If they didn't specify that a modified exhaust will void the insurance then they're paying. It is neither practical nor reasonable to assume that any car can be kept factory stock, regardless of the terms of such a contract and blanket conditions like "you can't make modifications to the vehicle" or "you must inform us of any and all changes made to the vehicle" is just not realistic.
 

Jibby5422

New member
Disgusting, imagine them denying coverage because you were on summer tires (for whatever reason). If YOU caused an accident, I could see the logic in denying a claim, however you getting rear ended; how are tires relevant?! If anything, if you have crappier tires you have a longer stopping distance which gives the person behind MORE time to react.

My dad was also involved in a collision a few years back where he got rear ended by some guy rubber necking an accident scene across a few lanes. Insurance found him 0% at fault but wrote the car off. Getting the a fair claim value out of the company was like pulling teeth.

I really wish we had better options available.
I asked my insurance company how much premium difference if I didn't use winter tires. It came out to be more obviously. But less than the cost of winter tires would have cost me even if the tires had lasted for 2 seasons. I installed new all seasons right before winter every other year since before winter tires were made. I drive appropriately for winter conditions and never had a problem in any part of Canada.
So I opted out of tge winter tire fad. Yes it's a fad to create a line of business just to put more money in corporate hands. For almost a hundred years we never needed winter tires. But suddenly now we do? Not buying it
 

Baggsy

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I asked my insurance company how much premium difference if I didn't use winter tires. It came out to be more obviously. But less than the cost of winter tires would have cost me even if the tires had lasted for 2 seasons. I installed new all seasons right before winter every other year since before winter tires were made. I drive appropriately for winter conditions and never had a problem in any part of Canada.
So I opted out of tge winter tire fad. Yes it's a fad to create a line of business just to put more money in corporate hands. For almost a hundred years we never needed winter tires. But suddenly now we do? Not buying it
If you live in Toronto, you usually need snow tires one or two days per year. Other places, you'll need them more often. They make a difference.
 

Wingboy

Well-known member
Moderator
Site Supporter
A co-worker some years ago went to get his test with his Chev S10 that he had done a lot custom work on. Brought the guy out to the curb and the guy failed him him before he even got in the truck.
He shaved the door handles and added springs that opened the doors a bit by remote. He borrowed his parents civic for the retest later.
Wrapped the truck around a lightpost in a Walmart parking lot the next winter. Don't think insurance covered it
 

Lyndsay

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I asked my insurance company how much premium difference if I didn't use winter tires. It came out to be more obviously. But less than the cost of winter tires would have cost me even if the tires had lasted for 2 seasons. I installed new all seasons right before winter every other year since before winter tires were made. I drive appropriately for winter conditions and never had a problem in any part of Canada.
So I opted out of tge winter tire fad. Yes it's a fad to create a line of business just to put more money in corporate hands. For almost a hundred years we never needed winter tires. But suddenly now we do? Not buying it
I've been on this planet for a long time, and can remember changing to winter tires for the last half-century, so I don't know where you got your "fad" idea from.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I asked my insurance company how much premium difference if I didn't use winter tires. It came out to be more obviously. But less than the cost of winter tires would have cost me even if the tires had lasted for 2 seasons. I installed new all seasons right before winter every other year since before winter tires were made. I drive appropriately for winter conditions and never had a problem in any part of Canada.
So I opted out of tge winter tire fad. Yes it's a fad to create a line of business just to put more money in corporate hands. For almost a hundred years we never needed winter tires. But suddenly now we do? Not buying it
"Even if the tires had lasted for two seasons"? What planet are you from? My current snows are almost 10 years old and still have one more season left in them.

My insurance discount for snows is 5% IIRC. I am putting the snows on without the discount as I prefer being able to turn and stop the discount is just a bonus. The snows cost me more than the discount saves me but I'm ok with that.
 

Top Bottom