Effects of Decreased Insurance Coverage | GTAMotorcycle.com

Effects of Decreased Insurance Coverage

I

invictus43

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
So here's a story of someone who is being affected by the government's decrease in the minimum coverage for medical. Summary: woman on a bicycle, hit by an SUV, multiple broken bones and brain injury. Injuries not considered "catastrophic" so she is only given $25k for medical which doesn't go far considering how much physio she needs. She's suing the SUV driver but no guarantee of any money from that action. Just wanted to post something showing the downside of less coverage (we have the best coverage in Canada), could easily have been a motorcyclist.

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/10...cyclist-struggling-with-insurance-payout?bn=1
 
invictus43 said:
So here's a story of someone who is being affected by the government's decrease in the minimum coverage for medical. Summary: woman on a bicycle, hit by an SUV, multiple broken bones and brain injury. Injuries not considered "catastrophic" so she is only given $25k for medical which doesn't go far considering how much physio she needs. She's suing the SUV driver but no guarantee of any money from that action. Just wanted to post something showing the downside of less coverage (we have the best coverage in Canada), could easily have been a motorcyclist.

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/10...cyclist-struggling-with-insurance-payout?bn=1
Click to expand...

Waaait whatt? I thought that the party not at fault has a choice to accept the settlement from the insurance company or sue for more. The SUV owner would just have to pay whatever goes over the $25k out of their own pocket.
To me this makes no sense that a motorist's can "only cover $25k" for her suffering BECAUSE they decided not to opt in for more coverage.
 
Sounds like US type payouts, but the premiums are still DN style prices.


Robbery.
 
PLau said:
Waaait whatt? I thought that the party not at fault has a choice to accept the settlement from the insurance company or sue for more. The SUV owner would just have to pay whatever goes over the $25k out of their own pocket.
To me this makes no sense that a motorist's can "only cover $25k" for her suffering BECAUSE they decided not to opt in for more coverage.
Click to expand...

She is suing for more, but it's a lengthy procedure, costs money and at the end, there's no assurance the person will actually pay. I suppose they're trying to say, if the minimum coverage had not been reduced, she'd have access to more benefits. This is why when people throw out how much cheaper premiums are in other areas, you have to keep in mind they have very little benefits. Almost any accident with injury involves a lawsuit.
 
omnivore said:
Sounds like US type payouts, but the premiums are still DN style prices.


Robbery.
Click to expand...

Well, you would expect the premiums to eventually go down at some point because in theory, they insurance companies are paying out more. I suppose we'll have to wait and see..
 
invictus43 said:
Well, you would expect the premiums to eventually go down at some point because in theory, they insurance companies are paying out more. I suppose we'll have to wait and see..
Click to expand...

That's the rhetoric my agent gave me when I told him how upset I was that my premiums haven't gone down, but his level of risk has basically been cut in half. That's something like a 100% profit margin increase in a one day span.
 
omnivore said:
That's the rhetoric my agent gave me when I told him how upset I was that my premiums haven't gone down, but his level of risk has basically been cut in half. That's something like a 100% profit margin increase in a one day span.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. But that's only part of the policy..but yeah, there should be SOME decrease..
 
omnivore said:
That's the rhetoric my agent gave me when I told him how upset I was that my premiums haven't gone down, but his level of risk has basically been cut in half. That's something like a 100% profit margin increase in a one day span.
Click to expand...

The risk is not even close to cut in half.

Your premium have already gone down in a sense -- rates would have increased by ~10% if the reforms didn't go through. Once the claims experience matures a bit (3 to 4 years) then the true impact/savings of the reform will be known and rates will reflect it more accurately.
 
VifferFun said:
The risk is not even close to cut in half.

Your premium have already gone down in a sense -- rates would have increased by ~10% if the reforms didn't go through. Once the claims experience matures a bit (3 to 4 years) then the true impact/savings of the reform will be known and rates will reflect it more accurately.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think there will be a significant reduction in rates? (as significant as the reduction in coverage)
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
Do you actually think there will be a significant reduction in rates? (as significant as the reduction in coverage)
Click to expand...

Yes, if the claims significantly decrease, there will certainly be a corresponding rate decrease. Even if insurance companies don't want to decrease rates in this scenario, they would be forced to do so by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (who regulates the rates).
 
I bought my health index back. It wasn't bad at all, like and extra $11-15 bucks a month. Seems worth it to me. I've got to get both bike and car on the same policy. I have to call my broker to see if its possible.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk
 
Venom01 said:
I bought my health index back. It wasn't bad at all, like and extra $11-15 bucks a month. Seems worth it to me. I've got to get both bike and car on the same policy. I have to call my broker to see if its possible.

Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's kinda what happens I think. How many people pay for $2million in liability? You're only required to have $200,000..but, for $10/mth or whatever it is, people pay the extra. Same with the $25k limit..will people pay for more? Maybe..a lot of people don't require theft but they still pay for it. Theft is very simple to understand..the numbers are very clear. I think people just like to complain frankly..
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom