Squishy wrote:

You are actually insuring yourself against liability, along with repair/replacement costs if you have collision coverage.

That's the key thing. Before I got a new car, I simply took liability without collision coverage. When I lived in the US, I took a fairly high liability coverage, because the second you get in a fender-bender there's going to be all kinds of lawsuits... don't get me started on that.

Radar your right.

But the massive payouts these companies make and the regulators that set the rules have a HUGE impact.

The regulators in the province set the minimum coverage/liability. So if they force the companies to cover this it results it massive payouts and people using the system.

As bear said i completely AGREE. Sometimes those tractor trailer crashes result in HUGE write off's. I knew a guy who worked for a trucking company. He said they had to pay top wage to get the best drivers. I remember him telling me that getting a poor driver or a dangerous one can result in massive insurance increases for the company's trucks that could hurt them financially big time.

Bear is write especially in carnage alley i bet you guys do get screwed. Can you imagine how big a write off for an accident involving 2 tractor trailers is?

2 trucks, 2 trailers, all the goods on the trucks possibly written off to. Imagine if other cars were involved, expensive goods on the truck, or even worse someone hurt or dies.

Although i bet you guys get jacked up rates in chatam for living along carnage alley there is no way you guys pay as much as we do in the GTA

The problem around here is insurance fraud is becoming a big crime. Along with that alot of people around here can't afford to insure even the most basic and cheap cars.

So that really jacks up peoples rates to.

There is a very good and safe way of transporting goods without inconveniencing anyone else, without sacrificing the timing for the chance of a traffic jam, practically eliminating chances of a collision.

Put the load on rails! No traffic jams, faster travel, very few accidents, those that do happen are insured by the carrier... And no unneeded insurance rate hikes every time a trailer tips over.

Until then ill drive around 120 like most of the rest of us on the 400 series do around Toronto.

Oh yeah ....Toronto......the end all be all Centre of the Universe, where nothing matters anywhere else

The problem is that the insurance companies don't really care about ending fraud. The more claims there are the more money they can make. Let's say they're regulated to a 10% profit margin on premiums.. So if there's 50b in claims, they can make 5b in profit. If there's 150b in claims, they can make 15b in profit. That's why they are also willing to pay the insane rates that the bodyshops have been charging for insurance-covered collision work.

One final discussion I had with my agent (before I un-tied him and let him leave) was why was it so easy when WE were teens to buy, maintain, and INSURE a vehicle on nothing more than a part-time job? Whereas today, the only kids driving are those from small families who's parents are wealthy enough to pay the $3,000 - $4,000 a year for their insurance fee, while the part-time job MAYBE pays for gas and maintenance.

He said it's the lawyers that are winning exorbitant awards that are at the root of the problem. If it's a kid that gets killed, that's a very long life that now has to be compensated for and the awards are in the millions. If the government could control the lawyers success in huge settlements, it wouldn't be so bad.

He also commented that the increased traffic today increases ones odds of having an accident. In the old days, if you crossed the centre line the odds were there wasn't a car coming the other way. Today, odds are you'll cause a head-on collision.

I also asked him if the graduated licensing system has really made a huge difference in accidents. He said it has. He said there has been far fewer fatalities of new drivers. So why hasn't insurance rates gone DOWN based on fewer accidents? Refer to lawyer discussions above

One thing I didn't think was fair: The insurance industry only considers accidents occurring in the last 6 years. So my wife and I have both been driving for 30 years now, completely accident free. But someone who had 10 accidents in their first 20 years of driving, then stayed clean for 6 years, will be treated the same as us when calculating their premium. Something just doesn't sound right about that. There really needs to be a rate for drivers NEVER having an at-fault accident.

Oh! One more thing. I also asked about insurance rates based on location. If I live in a neighborhood or municipality that has higher accident rates, will my rate be higher? He said generally, no. Exception, if you are a new driver in Toronto, you might be charged anywhere from 4,000 to $7,000 annually, as opposed to Stratford which is about $3,000.

I'm not about to start some politically incorrect discussion here, but he DID say there was one other exception... If you live in a certain area west of London, your rates will be higher based on the high auto theft rate there. The area is adjacent to the Indian reserve.

Bookm wrote:

He said it's the lawyers that are winning exorbitant awards that are at the root of the problem. If it's a kid that gets killed, that's a very long life that now has to be compensated for and the awards are in the millions. If the government could control the lawyers success in huge settlements, it wouldn't be so bad.

Oh! One more thing. I also asked about insurance rates based on location. If I live in a neighborhood or municipality that has higher accident rates, will my rate be higher? He said generally, no. Exception, if you are a new driver in Toronto, you might be charged anywhere from 4,000 to $7,000 annually, as opposed to Stratford which is about $3,000.

Lawyers are winning exorbitant awards everywhere. Then why going to Saskatchewan your insurance would likely be $30 per month? That is something that a kid with a part-time job can afford to pay.

Bookm wrote:

He also commented that the increased traffic today increases ones odds of having an accident. In the old days, if you crossed the centre line the odds were there wasn't a car coming the other way. Today, odds are you'll cause a head-on collision.

I also asked him if the graduated licensing system has really made a huge difference in accidents. He said it has. He said there has been far fewer fatalities of new drivers. So why hasn't insurance rates gone DOWN based on fewer accidents? Refer to lawyer discussions above

Why would someone in their right mind cross the centre line unless overtaking someone who's falling asleep? Even though I still think that the math doesn't work out there. He says the odds of collisions are greater, yet less younger drivers are fatally injured. The issue here is not the lawyers getting greater rewards, but the insurance companies vying for the greatest profit. There is no competition in the field. Everywhere you go you will likely get more or less the same rate, just like the oil-producing cartel - no matter the gas station, you will pay within a cent for a litre of UL-87. Your only "real" competition is driving without insurance. But that part is police-enforced.

What bugs me most is that the insurance companies have such a hard time paying out on legitimate claims. They are charging someone $2500 per year for 20 years, that driver gets hit from behind, and insurance refuses to cover the damage because of some BS excuse.

Racer good point.

Maybee thats why so many drivers refused to stop throwing their money away then when they get into an accident or a fender bender the company gives them a run around to get the money and will raise your rights.

If this is the case and your scared your rates will climb then most will just pay out of the pocket.

Outside of liability its alot of times not what you pay for.

I remember reading some article talking about in Toronto there was some massive number of estimated drivers that drive with no insurance.

Was it hwybear that was telling us about a guy who never paid for it in his life and even after some fine like 9000 or 19000 he is still better off then paying all those years.

If the fine is 5000 $. The insurance can be close or even more sometimes!. And if your car is worth 5-15 K $ (like most compacts or average sedans a few years old) then i think alot of people are starting to do the math and think they are getting jipped.

Even if you have insurance and get into an accident and your not at fault you still get screwed. You have to wait forever for them to come, they give you a run around. hard to get the money. Then you have to worry about them raising your rates again.

Very good points folks.

I have experienced the rate change, just b/c I moved....same vehicle. I went from NBay to Kingston, rates went up, went back to the Near North and my rate dropped lower than NBay, then moved down here to SW Ontario and my rate is the highest it has ever been.....what has changed? location, location, location.

Even though I live in Toronto and take it where the Sun don't shine with no lubrication, I can understand this particular factor. The higher the traffic density the higher the risk.

Even the high rates compared to the US are understandable b/c the levels of coverage are different. South of the border you can get away with 30,000 which wouldn't cover a single hospital visit.

Over here, it's more customary to get 1,000,000, which also includes accident benefits.

The only real nasty part is that fraud and padding are rampant here but the insurance companies are paying out with smiles on their faces b/c they know they'll just jack us with higher premiums to make up for it.

only way to fix auto insurance would be to have the insurance companies directly linked to MTO so can crack down on those without insurance, but also set up a fair means of measurement of all users.

No thank you. They already have enough of a link with the MTO. If they didn't have access to my conviction record, I'd gladly pay all of my tickets and wouldn't waste any more court's time.

When a private enterprise, especially if it provides a service necessary by law burrows too much into the bureaucracy, the inevitable result is corruption. Like that US judge who was receiving kickbacks from a private prison for every person he gave jailtime to and shipped off to the facility. He made millions on having a 10x greater incarceration rate than other judges.

Private companies should have NOTHING to do with essential services or branches of government (other than catering, and maybe cleaning the offices).

FiReSTaRT wrote:

The problem is that the insurance companies don't really care about ending fraud. The more claims there are the more money they can make. Let's say they're regulated to a 10% profit margin on premiums.. So if there's 50b in claims, they can make 5b in profit. If there's 150b in claims, they can make 15b in profit. That's why they are also willing to pay the insane rates that the bodyshops have been charging for insurance-covered collision work.

These thoughts are so far off base I don,t know where to start to set you right.

I will just give you a few facts.

The industry has to predict the next years payout now.

they try to make the premiums match the pay-out.

However they have the pool of money from the premiums first.

With this they invest in stocks or whatever to make the profit.

I.E. AIG made some bad investments and needs a bail-out.

In most cases they try to collect 102% of what they think they will have to pay-out.

This applys to commercial lines anyway.(commercial is all I know for sure about)

Cheers

Viper1

racer wrote:

Put the load on rails!

I'm all for that. Railways are safer and more fuel-efficient.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Even though I live in Toronto and take it where the Sun don't shine with no lubrication, I can understand this particular factor. The higher the traffic density the higher the risk. South of the border you can get away with 30,000 which wouldn't cover a single hospital visit.

That depends on the state. I had $1 million liability in Michigan. Also, having lived in the US and driven extensively throughout, I'd say your risk of getting into a crash are higher in Toronto than just about anywhere south of the border. People in this city like to hit things.

As for public auto insurance, I'm not sold on it. It's great, if you don't get into a collision. If you do, you are screwed. The compensation and payouts for people injured in collisions are a fraction of what they are in other provinces, usually not even enough to cover missed work. ICBC, as an example, brags that they charge the same rates for new drivers as more experienced drivers... but they only cover a fraction of the vehicle for new drivers! So if you're 18 and you wreck... too bad, you're out of a car! Private auto insurance is bad, but public auto insurance is even worse, at least the way it's done in Canada.

tdrive2 wrote:

I.E. AIG made some bad investments and needs a bail-out.

AIG did more than that. They were underwriting a lot of the subprime mortgages and other high-risk things that the Wall Street "experts" were hyping as good ways to make money. They weren't strictly an insurance company, in that they had several divisions in addition to their insurance business, almost all of which made asinine decisions that garden tools would recognize as stupid. They got heavily into the derivative markets which also killed them, but that was separate from the toxic loans that they underwrote. On top of that, they were very poorly managed (e.g. $400 000 off-site meeting at a golf resort after receiving their first taxpayer bailout) and, like a lot of other American companies, richly rewarded executives and staff for failing at an F- level, a good example of that being Lehman Brothers' CEO Richard Fuld. The entire company is one gigantic Gong Show.