cleared
Last edited:
|
|
|
Wow you are getting ripped off. I have a 350cc and live in the hellish and dangerous GTA Toronto and I pay $460 a year, one-third what you pay, and I still think I'm getting ripped off because I used to pay $325 seven years ago.
If the device can make it such that, within a small fleet of vehicles, one (and only one) vehicle can be operated at a given time, then I don't see any reason why an endorsement couldn't be drafted that allows a single premium to be charged for the small fleet of vehicles.
No . . . that's not a good spot because it would probably cut us when we rape our clients without lube. According to most of the uneducated people on this site, that's what we do on a daily basis.
This topic has been discussed to death in other threads.
K
Krauser
Guest
Since I'm the only one keeping on topic here, I called my broker to cancel the renewal and the reason my renewal went up so much is because the rates for my bike went up in the St. Catharine's area by over 20%... Anyways, happy with TD and I can't believe how competitive they are now for motorcycle insurance.
Viffer fun. You are a real arrogant SOB. Everybody on this site is uneducated according to you. I guess the only people you want to deal with are sheeps that do nor ask any questions and will follow and accept your BS. indefinetly. One question for you. Since Dalton McGuinty gave up the store to the insurance industry last year when the industry was crying, I am losing money, I am bleeding red, in your infinite wisdom, can you tell us the uneducated here how much money the insurance industry has pledge and has given McGuinty for the his re-election as premier of this province as a gift to his generosity to the industry at the uneducated expence????????? Voted for McGuinty last time, this time no, NDP, all the way. Maybe we will get government run insurance instead. Believe you me, it cannot get any worse than private companies. Roger[GYMPY
By "uneducated", I was referring specifically to people who are uneducated regarding insurance, not uneducated in general. Obviously someone much more educated than I am in a different field (such as mechanics) can know very little about insurance, just like I know very little about mechanics. My choice of wording was poor and for that I apologize.
With regards to the McGuinty comment -- we give nothing to him.
You voted for McGuinty last time, after he broke everyone of his 25 campaign promises the election before? And you don't consider yourself one of the "sheep"?
Viffer has been a long time member here and has provided a lot of useful information to riders with no personal gain for himself. I commend him and thank him for his efforts. I know the vast majority of members appreciate the information he provides.
Government run auto insurance is one of those ideas that on the surface sounds good but after a closer look not so much. All three major political parties in Ontario have governed over the past twenty years including the NDP and all have rejected the idea. I have no doubt that a free market system can deliver the product better and cheaper than a large government bureaucracy. In fact, the cheapest systems in North America have free market systems. Just look at Florida with some of the very same insurance companies that operate in our province.
The key to cheaper insurance is reducing the injury claims costs. The government already controls what we must buy in benefits and what insurers must pay out. In Florida, injury benefits are not mandatory. In Ontario, we must buy them and they account for approximately 70% of the compulsory premium. Our government has the ability to make some or all benefits optional, and to reduce fraud by closing loopholes. It approves or rejects premium and rule changes. Why create a giant unwieldy bureaucracy for something it already controls?
Last edited:
Thank you
I agree 100%. Could you imagine a Government run (and inevitably union controlled) public insurance system? The same people who complain about public workers being overpaid and underworked are the same people suggesting that the Gov't handle something as big as their insurance policy. Do people really want civil servants (think CUPW or TTC) handling their insurance policies? Do people really believe that the 5% saved by eliminating a profit provision would be enough to make up for the lack of efficiency in a Gov't run organization?
It seems to run just fine at cheaper rates in other provinces. Has the privatization of other government services resulted in lower costs for end consumers yet? So why would it work the other way?
The rates in other provinces aren't cheaper because they are administered by the Gov't -- the rates are cheaper because the provinces with Gov't insurance are nothing like the litigious environment in Ontario. Allow me to write a private policy in Saskatchewan and I would be able to offer a cheaper rate than SGI . . . I have already done the analysis.
Also, in public insurance provinces, there is more political pressure to keep insurance rates low, and sometimes artificially so. Huge premium vs claims shortfalls in Quebec's and BC's public insurance regimes were covered by cash infusions out of general tax revenue. That means that taxpayers who may not even have a driver's license or who could not afford to own their own vehicle were being forced to subsidize auto insurance costs for those who do drive.
Quebec finally moved to correct this shortfall by raising their public insurance rates to more realistically represent the cost of the insurance coverage provided, with the result being hefty rate increases for certain segments. Even with those increases in the last few years, the real cost of insurance is still not covered by the premiums collected. That;s not right either - for something like driving, the cost should be borne by those directly benefiting from driving.
Now for a good American Insurance company from the states. I believe ity was All State in Florida two years ago who suspended and refused to renew, issue new insurance for home owners in the State of Florida due to the hurricanes that went through in 2004/2005. They dropped thousands of home owners due to the payout they had to do. All they wanted to insure was automobiles, motorcycles, boats and othe recreational products. They said it was the gravy out of the crop. Now, Isn't that the complete reversal of what we hear from the same company up here?????????????? You know what the state of Florida did??????????? The govenor had some testicular fortitude and told them unless you insure house holds, we are suspending your liscence to take on any more vehicles. They could continue with what they had but no new business. They were suspended for a full year. They came to their senses and came back into the house hold business. We need a premier like him to get the insurance industry into shape. They have failed the public misably and continue to due so. Oh, by the way, I am a retired Canada Post employee and a former Chief Shop Stuard for CUPW. I am now a full honorary member with full privaledge of a working member. Not all former workers have that distintion to bragg about. Soloridity for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, I have been wintering in Florida for the past five years so I know a little about the insurance industry there. They are as crooked if not more than our insurance industry. My advice when dealing with insurance company is to never give them an inch and sue the crap out of them when they start playing their games. I know, Have sued five companies and won them all. Roger [GYMPY]
Platinum Cycle
Well-known member
Why would an insurance company want to provide coverage against the peril of wind (hurricane) in a place where you know losses are going to happen and those losses will be catastrophic? i.e. Florida
It's kind of like knowing an earthquake is about to happen and then writing policies that insure against earthquake.
If I live in Florida I would be disappointed by such a decision, but would surely understand. Similarly, people in Japan may understand if an insurer decides to stop writing policies that cover earthquakes.
It's kind of like knowing an earthquake is about to happen and then writing policies that insure against earthquake.
If I live in Florida I would be disappointed by such a decision, but would surely understand. Similarly, people in Japan may understand if an insurer decides to stop writing policies that cover earthquakes.
One thing I've learned is that as a car gets older, it's actually more costly to insure it. Why? Because the car is more likely to be totalled.
If the value of the vehicle is high, then it takes much more damage before the car is a total loss.
As the value of the vehicle drops, the cost to repair remains the same or rises. This means the odds of paying off a total loss increase. Therefore the insurance company will raise the rates.
I'm not saying all of any increase is due to this, but some of any increase is likely due such odds calculations by insurance companies.
Add in their losses in the financial markets, more folks having "accidents" because they can't afford their car so it gets stolen, catches fire, etc, not to mention insurance companies checking credit reports, and you have the recipe for rising rates.
If the value of the vehicle is high, then it takes much more damage before the car is a total loss.
As the value of the vehicle drops, the cost to repair remains the same or rises. This means the odds of paying off a total loss increase. Therefore the insurance company will raise the rates.
I'm not saying all of any increase is due to this, but some of any increase is likely due such odds calculations by insurance companies.
Add in their losses in the financial markets, more folks having "accidents" because they can't afford their car so it gets stolen, catches fire, etc, not to mention insurance companies checking credit reports, and you have the recipe for rising rates.
|
|
|
|
|