No-fault isn't working for motorcyclists

[TK4]

Forum Sponsor

From the Mitchell and Whale website:
Motorcycle insurance is so expensive because of the cost to fix your body if you are in an accident.
In Ontario, both motorcycle insurance and auto insurance are regulated by the government. With both of these insurance policies, the insurance companies are mandated by law to provide accident benefits to provide you with medical care if you're hurt in an accident.
The accident benefits portion of the 25 year old with a $3500 M1 policy is over $2100; with collision, the insurance for the bike only being $246 of the total premium. As Ontario is a no-fault insurance province, it is your own insurance company that has to pay the health care system to fix you, not the insurance company of the car that hit you, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT AT FAULT.
The amount you pay for any type of insurance is primarily based on your exposure to risk. This is one of the primary reasons that motorcycle is more expensive than car insurance: higher probable risk–of injury. Whether you ride a motorcycle or drive a car, the regulations regarding your coverage are the same. Both motorcycle and auto policies include minimum coverages that are required by law. Insurance companies don’t have a choice but to include them, and they aren’t legally permitted to offer an insurance policy that doesn’t include these minimum coverages.

So, if I may sum up (others will correct me I'm sure), what's really happening here is that motorcyclists are not buying insurance to protect the other guy from us but to protect ourselves from the other guy. It seems to have much less to do with potential property damage payout than I'd thought. The likelihood of a cager suffering physical injury from a car/motorcycle or car/car altercation is significantly lower, so they pay significantly lower premiums in proportion to vehicular value, time used, distance travelled and who's at fault. Motorcyclists and their insurers, through no-fault, have been put in a high risk for payout category not for the damage they might cause but for the damage they may suffer.

What's wrong with this picture ?

 

[Roadghost]

Yes, I agree. But... a dirty little secret they also don't tell you is that if your employer has accident benefits, they pay first for disability. The automobile insurance pays second. So, when I grilled my insurer about that little loophole, and I asked why I was paying for pain, suffering and permanent disability, and that the new law allowed my to pick and choose my insurance coverage, they reneged and removed the injury costs from my policy. I pay $28X for my bike insurance or thereabouts.

Look at the insurance coverage your employer gives you. Then look at your auto/bike insurance. Eliminate the duplicity. They don't ante up that information easily.

 

[Lightcycle]

I was always under the understanding that under "no-fault" insurance, if you were deemed not at fault in an accident, then your insurance company has the option to make a claim (subrogate) to the insurance company of the at-fault party:

- you get hit by a driver
- you make a claim for medical and vehicle repair expenses to your insurance company
- they pay out to you
- police deems you were 0% at fault
- your insurance company can go after the at-fault driver's insurance company to recover all monies that they paid out to you
- then the at-fault party's premiums go up - as it should be.

If this is true, then you should not be penalized more if you were riding a motorcycle than any other vehicle. Ultimately it's the at-fault insurance company that pays out in the end, even if you never deal with them directly.

*UNLESS* the actuarial tables show that motorcycle riders are actually more at fault than car drivers, hence the premium...

 

[Surnet Insurance - Paul South]

I was always under the understanding that under "no-fault" insurance, if you were deemed not at fault in an accident, then your insurance company has the option to make a claim (subrogate) to the insurance company of the at-fault party:

- you get hit by a driver
- you make a claim for medical and vehicle repair expenses to your insurance company
- they pay out to you
- police deems you were 0% at fault
- your insurance company can go after the at-fault driver's insurance company to recover all monies that they paid out to you
- then the at-fault party's premiums go up - as it should be.

If this is true, then you should not be penalized more if you were riding a motorcycle than any other vehicle. Ultimately it's the at-fault insurance company that pays out in the end, even if you never deal with them directly.

*UNLESS* the actuarial tables show that motorcycle riders are actually more at fault than car drivers, hence the premium...

It is actually the opposite.

Regardless if you are at fault, or not at fault in an accident, your own insurer pays for your losses and is unable to surrogate.

 

[pfbmgd]

Yes, I agree. But... a dirty little secret they also don't tell you is that if your employer has accident benefits, they pay first for disability. The automobile insurance pays second. So, when I grilled my insurer about that little loophole, and I asked why I was paying for pain, suffering and permanent disability, and that the new law allowed my to pick and choose my insurance coverage, they reneged and removed the injury costs from my policy. I pay $28X for my bike insurance or thereabouts.

Look at the insurance coverage your employer gives you. Then look at your auto/bike insurance. Eliminate the duplicity. They don't ante up that information easily.

Can you post more information on this ? I have medical coverage and disability from my employer .

 

[Roadghost]

Can you post more information on this ? I have medical coverage and disability from my employer .

Don't get it from me. Do exactly what I told you to do. Look at your employer coverage, then look at any overlap in the auto insurance for injury. Then ask your auto insurer who pays. They'll say the other guy. Then say, well then cancel the coverage your giving me, I'm not paying for something I won't get.

 

[TK4]

Yes, I agree. But... a dirty little secret they also don't tell you is that if your employer has accident benefits, they pay first for disability. The automobile insurance pays second. So, when I grilled my insurer about that little loophole, and I asked why I was paying for pain, suffering and permanent disability, and that the new law allowed my to pick and choose my insurance coverage, they reneged and removed the injury costs from my policy. I pay $28X for my bike insurance or thereabouts.

Look at the insurance coverage your employer gives you. Then look at your auto/bike insurance. Eliminate the duplicity. They don't ante up that information easily.

So if I were self-employed or retired and carried supplementary 24/7 health care coverage like Greenshield would the same rules apply ?

 

[PrivatePilot]

Don't get it from me. Do exactly what I told you to do. Look at your employer coverage, then look at any overlap in the auto insurance for injury. Then ask your auto insurer who pays. They'll say the other guy. Then say, well then cancel the coverage your giving me, I'm not paying for something I won't get.

My concern with that would be that if you get hurt in an accident, and then during your recovery time (perhaps years or longer if it was a serious wreck) your employer coverage disappears....IE, one of a few scenarios:

• The coverage only lasts so long after you stop working before it expires
• It only lasts so long after you stop working before it becomes "user pay" and often prohibitively expensive.
• Your employer ends your position somehow and your benefits disappear completely.
• Your employer becomes insolvent/moves/closes/whatever and your benefits disappear completely.

The only one that is probably unlikely is the "your employer fires you" scenario as you do have some protection under the law there, but we all know not all employers care about the law (or even have a heart), and if you're severely injured and perhaps struggling financially because of it, not everyone will have the ability, willpower, or financial ability to fight back in that scenario.

In any of those situations you may find yourself out in the cold as it's unlikely the insurance company will let you just change your mind and add those options back on after the fact now that you need them.

 

[jridessuzuki]

Isn't it great how they may pay? have to read and understand your own policy each one is different, also can't hurt to contact your own benefit provider and ask questions.

 

[F3800RC]

Isn't it great how they may pay? have to read and understand your own policy each one is different, also can't hurt to contact your own benefit provider and ask questions.

You are reading too much into this. It's a legal contract. No legal contract is going to be black and white and say we WILL for sure pay.
If they said that they would have to pay regardless of circumstances and clearly here are circumstance where they won't and shouldn't pay

 

[Relax]

Don't get it from me. Do exactly what I told you to do. Look at your employer coverage, then look at any overlap in the auto insurance for injury. Then ask your auto insurer who pays. They'll say the other guy. Then say, well then cancel the coverage your giving me, I'm not paying for something I won't get.

Which specific accident benefits did the allowed you to drop (or lower coverage down to)? I was told by my insurer (State Farm, then Desjardins), that I am already at the legal minimum for accident benefits and they can't lower my premiums any more. When I was rear ended in my car, I ended up doing physio therapy which was initially paid by my employment benefits, but that ran out quickly, and my insurer paid the rest for the next 3 years. Luckily I didn't need to go on STD or LTD.

 

[F3800RC]

Which specific accident benefits did the allowed you to drop (or lower coverage down to)? I was told by my insurer (State Farm, then Desjardins), that I am already at the legal minimum for accident benefits and they can't lower my premiums any more. When I was rear ended in my car, I ended up doing physio therapy which was initially paid by my employment benefits, but that ran out quickly, and my insurer paid the rest for the next 3 years. Luckily I didn't need to go on STD or LTD.

From the Mitchell and Whale website:
Motorcycle insurance is so expensive because of the cost to fix your body if you are in an accident.
In Ontario, both motorcycle insurance and auto insurance are regulated by the government. With both of these insurance policies, the insurance companies are mandated by law to provide accident benefits to provide you with medical care if you're hurt in an accident.
The accident benefits portion of the 25 year old with a $3500 M1 policy is over $2100; with collision, the insurance for the bike only being $246 of the total premium. As Ontario is a no-fault insurance province, it is your own insurance company that has to pay the health care system to fix you, not the insurance company of the car that hit you, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT AT FAULT.
The amount you pay for any type of insurance is primarily based on your exposure to risk. This is one of the primary reasons that motorcycle is more expensive than car insurance: higher probable risk–of injury. Whether you ride a motorcycle or drive a car, the regulations regarding your coverage are the same. Both motorcycle and auto policies include minimum coverages that are required by law. Insurance companies don’t have a choice but to include them, and they aren’t legally permitted to offer an insurance policy that doesn’t include these minimum coverages.

So, if I may sum up (others will correct me I'm sure), what's really happening here is that motorcyclists are not buying insurance to protect the other guy from us but to protect ourselves from the other guy. It seems to have much less to do with potential property damage payout than I'd thought. The likelihood of a cager suffering physical injury from a car/motorcycle or car/car altercation is significantly lower, so they pay significantly lower premiums in proportion to vehicular value, time used, distance travelled and who's at fault. Motorcyclists and their insurers, through no-fault, have been put in a high risk for payout category not for the damage they might cause but for the damage they may suffer.

What's wrong with this picture ?

what’s wrong with this picture is that the guy above had 2 insurers pay for his physio for years and still complaining and wants lower coverage and lower premiums even after the system helped him get better for years !
he has sucked way more money out of the system than he has put in .
insurance in Ontario is no fault , but the party who is at fault gets hit with the rate increase and fault of an accident even though their insurer doesn’t pay.
however if you are catastrophically injured you can opt out and sue the other party. The system is designed to get rid of small back and forth discussions and lawyers and insurers arguing about claims. You need, rehab , medical and income replacement immediately not after the 2 insurers and lawyers argue about it.
Again if you are catastrophically injured you can then sue the other party .
Not sure why you think anything is wrong with this especially because minor car accidents generally don’t have injuries but minor motorcycle ones will almost always have injuries.

 

[F3800RC]

It is actually the opposite.

Regardless if you are at fault, or not at fault in an accident, your own insurer pays for your losses and is unable to surrogate.

Unless you are catastrophically injured and then you can sue the third party

 

[TK4]

"Not sure why you think anything is wrong with this especially because minor car accidents generally don’t have injuries but minor motorcycle ones will almost always have injuries."
-Because in the vast majority of accidents the cager is at fault, yet his insurance company walks away clean and green - where's the fairness in that ?
"Unless you are catastrophically injured and then you can sue the third party"
-Why should you have to sue anybody, isn't that what insurance is supposed to be for ?
Your latte's getting cold...

 

[F3800RC]

"Not sure why you think anything is wrong with this especially because minor car accidents generally don’t have injuries but minor motorcycle ones will almost always have injuries."
-Because in the vast majority of accidents the cager is at fault, yet his insurance company walks away clean and green - where's the fairness in that ?
"Unless you are catastrophically injured and then you can sue the third party"
-Why should you have to sue anybody, isn't that what insurance is supposed to be for ?
Your latte's getting cold...

its no fault insurance I already explained it above, and I explained the process of why it is that way and how it works.I’ll drink a latte ( not sure why that’s an insult ) you go drink a slim fast shake or 2.

 

[LBV]

When fault is taken away from ones actions, then out goes responsibility too. It's what I see wrong with much of society today - it's never your fault, always someone elses. "Integrity" will be gone from the dictionary one day ...

 

[F3800RC]

When fault is taken away from ones actions, then out goes responsibility too. It's what I see wrong with much of society today - it's never your fault, always someone elses. "Integrity" will be gone from the dictionary one day ...

the fault is only determined for who pays. The true fault and consequences is still given to the person who caused the accident through increased premiums and a bad record that follows them.

 

[TK4]

When fault is taken away from ones actions, then out goes responsibility too. It's what I see wrong with much of society today - it's never your fault, always someone elses. "Integrity" will be gone from the dictionary one day ...

I fear that integrity has been replaced by entitlement - it makes me sad.

 

[Roadghost]

My concern with that would be that if you get hurt in an accident, and then during your recovery time (perhaps years or longer if it was a serious wreck) your employer coverage disappears....IE, one of a few scenarios:

• The coverage only lasts so long after you stop working before it expires
• It only lasts so long after you stop working before it becomes "user pay" and often prohibitively expensive.
• Your employer ends your position somehow and your benefits disappear completely.
• Your employer becomes insolvent/moves/closes/whatever and your benefits disappear completely.

The only one that is probably unlikely is the "your employer fires you" scenario as you do have some protection under the law there, but we all know not all employers care about the law (or even have a heart), and if you're severely injured and perhaps struggling financially because of it, not everyone will have the ability, willpower, or financial ability to fight back in that scenario.

In any of those situations you may find yourself out in the cold as it's unlikely the insurance company will let you just change your mind and add those options back on after the fact now that you need them.

It's up to you to know your employer benefit plan. For example, most include short-term disability, and when that runs out you should qualify for long-term disability if you will not be able to work again. Now, almost all auto plans want to sell you the exact same thing, but if the scoundrels find out your employer benefits cover it that's where they'll tell you to go. If there's a discrepancy in wage-loss coverage (say your employer only covers 60% vs 80% for the auto plan) the auto plan makes up the 20% difference. But if you have an employer with great benefits (ie. public service union, or other) its worth it to skip the auto benefit plan. No employer can fire you for being sick, and they cannot cut you off your benefits. It's true that your employer could become insolvent but the insurance must continue to pay if you already have the claim in. Again, you should know your employer, and you're very right when you say there are some real heartless crooks out there.

 

[Relax]

what’s wrong with this picture is that the guy above had 2 insurers pay for his physio for years and still complaining and wants lower coverage and lower premiums even after the system helped him get better for years !
he has sucked way more money out of the system than he has put in .
insurance in Ontario is no fault , but the party who is at fault gets hit with the rate increase and fault of an accident even though their insurer doesn’t pay.
however if you are catastrophically injured you can opt out and sue the other party. The system is designed to get rid of small back and forth discussions and lawyers and insurers arguing about claims. You need, rehab , medical and income replacement immediately not after the 2 insurers and lawyers argue about it.
Again if you are catastrophically injured you can then sue the other party .
Not sure why you think anything is wrong with this especially because minor car accidents generally don’t have injuries but minor motorcycle ones will almost always have injuries.

What's wrong with you? All you do is post negative comments that add no value to this forum. Everyone who makes a claim "sucks" more money than they put in. That's how the system works, pretty much like a casino - everyone ante's up and hopes they DON'T win the jackpot. But when someone does make a valid claim, the house still comes out ahead because it was factored into everyone's premiums. And by the way, my physiotherapy didn't come close to the $65,000 minimum coverage I was force to pay for. STD, LTD and prescriptions are covered by my employer's plan. Of the remaining statutory benefits, I'm ineligible. So tell me, what's wrong with dropping coverage that I'll never be able to claim? I guess you're happy to pay for something you'll never receive? Because I have a bridge for sale.

Forum Sponsor