Questions about at fault acciddents and claims

Rossi86

Rossi86

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Since SF is screwing over everyone with their new rates, I need to start shopping for insurance again after 8 years and I forgot all the details. Just wanted to clarify a few things before I decide on full coverage or just liability + fire/theft on the new insurance. First, my bike and car combined don't cost more than $10 000, so I don't know if going with full coverage is worth it.

1) If someone has only liability insurance and has an at fault accident, will he/she be covered by accident benefits i.e wage losses, rehab, etc?

2) Since this person doesn't have full coverage, he/she cannot claim the damages to his/her vehicle, will there be an "at fault" accident in his/her record for the next 6 years even though the person couldn't claim the damages?

3) If someone does have full coverage and has an at fault accident, if he/she doesn't claim the damages to his/her vehicle, will there be a 6 year record for an at fault accident? In other words, is the "at fault" accident record kept with the driver's abstract or the insurance system when someone makes claims?

4) If someone has an at fault accident and the driver decides not to claim his vehicle's damage, is the driver legally required to report it to his/her insurance regardless of claiming or not?

*** all scenarios involve the accident being reported to the police, I'm not talking about wrecking your car in the middle of nowhere and keeping things quiet :D

If all scenarios result with an at fault accident record, then it would be worth it to go with full coverage. At least this way you get your vehicle damages covered, even though in the next 6 years they will increase the rates to make more than what they give you on the claim.
 
Rossi86 said:
1) If someone has only liability insurance and has an at fault accident, will he/she be covered by accident benefits i.e wage losses, rehab, etc?

Yes, but the coverage amounts aren't spectacular...you can pay additional for additional coverage.

2) Since this person doesn't have full coverage, he/she cannot claim the damages to his/her vehicle, will there be an "at fault" accident in his/her record for the next 6 years even though the person couldn't claim the damages?

If you are deemed at fault...an accident is an accident regardless of pay out or lack thereof. If it's on your driving record (ie, the police were there and such) then it's on your insurance record. Even just *calling* your insurance company and informing them of a minor accident (a parking lot fender bender you were just going to deal with between parties directly, for example) can result in a ding on your insurance record.

If you are deemed not at fault it'll be on your record as well but doesn't really matter...read on.

3) If someone does have full coverage and has an at fault accident, if he/she doesn't claim the damages to his/her vehicle, will there be a 6 year record for an at fault accident? In other words, is the "at fault" accident record kept with the driver's abstract or the insurance system when someone makes claims?

Same answer as #2 above. If there's police involvement and they deem you at fault, you get an at fault on your insurance record regardless. If they deem you NOT at fault then it goes on your record but you can't be penalized for it for insurance purposes.

4) If someone has an at fault accident and the driver decides not to claim his vehicle's damage, is the driver legally required to report it to his/her insurance regardless of claiming or not?

Again, same answer as #2 assuming the police show up. Since you stipulate that all of your scenarios involve the accident being reported to the police, there will be a record for all the above scenarios no matter what...and yes, you need to tell your insurance company as they WILL find out anyways and will be unlikely to be fond of the fact you didn't inform them. If there's another vehicle involved and they report it your insurance company will be soon ringing your phone off it's hook anyways, so it's in your best interest to contact them before that anyways. If they don't report it (as in your scenario) they will find out when they pull your renewal documents and see it on your record.

In the case of a multi vehicle accident where things may be minor and the two parties decide to just settle it amongst themselves (again, not 100% legal, but a lot of people do it) you are technically not going to mess up your insurance so long as nobody changes their mind. If the other party suddenly decides to call their insurance company and file a claim (or hell, even just inquire, see answer to #2 above) your insurance company will hear about it and you could end up with a 50% at fault on your record in lieu of the police having deemed responsibility/fault properly at the actual time of the accident.
Click to expand...

In the end, if the police are involved, your insurance company WILL know about the situation sooner or later and you are supposed to inform them of all accidents in short order - failure to do so can negatively effect your rates and/or their willingness to renew you when the time comes. The big difference with all the scenarios here is at fault vs not at fault. If the police in all the scenarios hold you not at fault you have no worries about contacting your insurance company as a 100% not at fault claim will not effect your rates at all anyways, so claim away. However, if you are deemed at fault or even 50% at fault there is a negative insurance effect...and you do not want to try to hide it as you autoplus record will show the incident anyways in the end.
 
Last edited:
Good answer Private Pilot, except #2. Even if police deem you not at fault, your insurance company can still deem you to be at fault or partly at fault, and raise your rates. Insurance companies have their own fault determination rules, despite what the police say.

Sent from my Le Pan TC802A using Tapatalk
 
TLDR: you may not save as much as you think by not choosing/paying for collision part of the policy.


Direct Compensation Property Damage (DCPD) is a mandatory part of your policy. This is collision coverage for reparing/paying-out your car/bike for damage caused by the other party in the collision based upon % assignment of fault.

So even though collision is optional, you still have to pay for the DCPD part. On my Harley, The breakdown is $125 for DCPD and $236 Collision (annual). $236 extra per year for covering my risk on a $20k bike is peanuts IMHO.

In a collision where the other party was 100% at fault, the DCPD coverage pays to repair (minus the deductible). If I was 100% at fault, the collision coverage pays to repair (minus deductible). My insurance company pays to repair regardless, and no recovery or settlement is made with the other insurance company. If I was 100% at fault and didn't have Collision, then nothing paid out by my insurance company, and I cannot recover/sue the other party or insurance company.

Supposedly, this 'no-fault' system saves everyone by not having insurance companies having to recover from each other (lawyers, law suits), but I think that it makes higher rates for good drivers because your company has to cover the exposure you may have to other bad drivers. Hence Brampton, Richmond Hill rates vs Whitby.
 
Last edited:
Thanks the answers guys

Iceman said:
Good answer Private Pilot, except #2. Even if police deem you not at fault, your insurance company can still deem you to be at fault or partly at fault, and raise your rates. Insurance companies have their own fault determination rules, despite what the police say.

Sent from my Le Pan TC802A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It can also go the other way around. My friend got hit from behind while doing a U turn, the cop charged him with improper turn or something, but the insurance assigned 100% fault to the other driver. He took the ticket to court and got off
 
Since SF is screwing over everyone with their new rates, I need to start shopping for insurance again after 8 years and I forgot all the details. Just wanted to clarify a few things before I decide on full coverage or just liability + fire/theft on the new insurance. First, my bike and car combined don't cost more than $10 000, so I don't know if going with full coverage is worth it.

1) If someone has only liability insurance and has an at fault accident, will he/she be covered by accident benefits i.e wage losses, rehab, etc?

Yes, Liability coverage includes, Rehab, Wage Losses etc. They are at the minimums when you purchase insurance but you can always buy up.

2) Since this person doesn't have full coverage, he/she cannot claim the damages to his/her vehicle, will there be an "at fault" accident in his/her record for the next 6 years even though the person couldn't claim the damages?

If you are in an accident, and you do not claim the accident with your company there are many ways the insurance company can find out. One being police reports, second being if the other party decides to report it will show up. If you are deemed at fault even though you do not have collision coverage you still be surcharged, and have it on your record. After 6 years it will not affect your rate.

3) If someone does have full coverage and has an at fault accident, if he/she doesn't claim the damages to his/her vehicle, will there be a 6 year record for an at fault accident? In other words, is the "at fault" accident record kept with the driver's abstract or the insurance system when someone makes claims?

It is kept in an insurance system called A+. Every insurance agent and broker run this report to get a loss history report. Once again, if you do not claim the damage and someone else reports their damage it can affect you as well and will stay stay on your record for 6 years.

4) If someone has an at fault accident and the driver decides not to claim his vehicle's damage, is the driver legally required to report it to his/her insurance regardless of claiming or not?

No. If you choose to fix the damage yourself then up to you. But if the other person decides to make a claim then it will affect you. I usually advise my clients that if the damage is going to be less than their deductible to talk to the other person and make some sort of agreement for compensation and have them sign some sort agreement so that you have proof. In any case if you go to the reporting centre and the damage is under 2000 then they would tell you no report is required.

*** all scenarios involve the accident being reported to the police, I'm not talking about wrecking your car in the middle of nowhere and keeping things quiet :D

If all scenarios result with an at fault accident record, then it would be worth it to go with full coverage. At least this way you get your vehicle damages covered, even though in the next 6 years they will increase the rates to make more than what they give you on the claim.
 
FLSTC said:
TLDR: you may not save as much as you think by not choosing/paying for collision part of the policy.


Direct Compensation Property Damage (DCPD) is a mandatory part of your policy. This is collision coverage for reparing/paying-out your car/bike for damage caused by the other party in the collision based upon % assignment of fault.

So even though collision is optional, you still have to pay for the DCPD part. On my Harley, The breakdown is $125 for DCPD and $236 Collision (annual). $236 extra per year for covering my risk on a $20k bike is peanuts IMHO.

In a collision where the other party was 100% at fault, the DCPD coverage pays to repair (minus the deductible). If I was 100% at fault, the collision coverage pays to repair (minus deductible). My insurance company pays to repair regardless, and no recovery or settlement is made with the other insurance company. If I was 100% at fault and didn't have Collision, then nothing paid out by my insurance company, and I cannot recover/sue the other party or insurance company.

Supposedly, this 'no-fault' system saves everyone by not having insurance companies having to recover from each other (lawyers, law suits), but I think that it makes higher rates for good drivers because your company has to cover the exposure you may have to other bad drivers. Hence Brampton, Richmond Hill rates vs Whitby.
Click to expand...

There is no deductible for DCPD. The way DCPD works is that if you are 100% not at fault you claim 100% under DCPD. if you are 75% not at fault you claim 75% under DCPD and 25% under Collision(if you have that coverage). if you are 50% not at fault then you it is paid 50% under DCPD and 50% Collision and so on. DCPD is also mandatory and is in the liability section of your coverage.

Just wanted to clarify...
 
Rossi86 said:
Thanks the answers guys



It can also go the other way around. My friend got hit from behind while doing a U turn, the cop charged him with improper turn or something, but the insurance assigned 100% fault to the other driver. He took the ticket to court and got off
Click to expand...

At fault or Not At Fault determination is not determined by the police. So even if you have a ticket for whatever reason you can be not at fault. FSCO which governs insurance companies have their own determination rules, which is what insurers use to say whether who is wrong or not.
 
Vinnie - Allstate Ins. said:
At fault or Not At Fault determination is not determined by the police. So even if you have a ticket for whatever reason you can be not at fault. FSCO which governs insurance companies have their own determination rules, which is what insurers use to say whether who is wrong or not.
Click to expand...


@Vinnie
Please pm me or tell us if ppl are getting real discounts with the drivewise program?
It seems you get dinged for a lot of small things e.g. braking in parking lot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom