Changes to Ontario Insurance Requirements

W

woot

Well-known member
If the other driver is at fault, I'd imagine you could still take them to court to recoup the costs?
 
DoFo is no better than Wynn at insurance! In both cases the path to cheaper insurance has been to reduce what used to be mandatory coverage. "You want to save some money? Give the dice a roll"
 
woot said:
If the other driver is at fault, I'd imagine you could still take them to court to recoup the costs?
Click to expand...
From the link:
“If the described vehicle is damaged in a collision the loss will not be compensated even if you are not at fault,” the opt-out form warns. “You will not be compensated by this insurance policy, or by anyone else, including anyone at fault for causing the damage, or their insurance company.”
 
timtune said:
From the link:
“If the described vehicle is damaged in a collision the loss will not be compensated even if you are not at fault,” the opt-out form warns. “You will not be compensated by this insurance policy, or by anyone else, including anyone at fault for causing the damage, or their insurance company.”
Click to expand...
I missed the end of that sentence I guess. Why does the deal that I have with my insurance company affect my ability to seek compensation from others? How is it that they made insurance in Ontario more f'd up?
 
timtune said:
From the link:
“If the described vehicle is damaged in a collision the loss will not be compensated even if you are not at fault,” the opt-out form warns. “You will not be compensated by this insurance policy, or by anyone else, including anyone at fault for causing the damage, or their insurance company.”
Click to expand...
At least they made the wording clear.

What a win for insurance companies. Collect a little less premium, avoid paying out tons of claims, still jack the rates for the at-fault driver.
 
woot said:
I missed the end of that sentence I guess. Why does the deal that I have with my insurance company affect my ability to seek compensation from others? How is it that they made insurance in Ontario more f'd up?
Click to expand...
That was the whole point of no-fault. Keep the lawyers mostly out of it. No-fault except when you want to sue the other person could not work.
 
Last edited:
woot said:
If the other driver is at fault, I'd imagine you could still take them to court to recoup the costs?
Click to expand...
Good luck with that. In my very first car accident, a guy in a rusting Pinto turned left in front of my Maserati and the repair bill came to $35,000 in 1986 dollars. He was uninsured, and I'm pretty sure unlicensed or at least suspended - it would have been like squeezing blood from a stone as the saying goes without that coverage, even if you could sue them.
 
This must be what the letter I got in the mail labelled on the envelope important information about your insurance policy. I haven't opened it yet, hate opening mail from insurance. I guess without reading anything more rigging of the system. 🤷‍♂️
 
woot said:
If the other driver is at fault, I'd imagine you could still take them to court to recoup the costs?
Click to expand...
If you read YOUR insurance policy, you gave up the right to do that, except in very specific circumstance

... it would be interesting to know what would happen if two un-insured drivers got into a collision. Can they sue?
 
This whole thing has lowered my view of Ontario auto insurance even further. I can't believe this made it all the way to market
 
TwistedKestrel said:
This whole thing has lowered my view of Ontario auto insurance even further. I can't believe this made it all the way to market
Click to expand...
I think this is what happens when governments ask insurance companies for ideas on lowering insurance rates.
 
Does GTAM still rank crazy high in search results? Maybe we need to sticky a post in the insurance section with something like "Should I waive DPCD coverage to lower my Ontario insurance premiums? NO"
 
GreyGhost said:
At least they made the wording clear.

What a win for insurance companies. Collect a little less premium, avoid paying out tons of claims, still jack the rates for the at-fault driver.
Click to expand...
My prediction: This coverage will shortly become an upsale item.
The standard policy will soon be without the other-driver coverage, but at the same rates as current. OH, you want that coverage? That's at an additional cost.
 
Once upon a time, you paid the province $45 and were dropped into the uninsured motor vehicle pool.
That usually did not end well, but it allowed folks that couldn't afford to drive still be on the road.
All fun and games until you caused an accident...
 
TK4 said:
Once upon a time, you paid the province $45 and were dropped into the uninsured motor vehicle pool.
That usually did not end well, but it allowed folks that couldn't afford to drive still be on the road.
All fun and games until you caused an accident...
Click to expand...
Known as "unsatisfied judgement".
Started out at $25/yr. Bumped to $40/yr, then it went to $100/yr (we referred to it as 'buck luck' at that point).
I used it for yrs. Then I bumped into the rubber bumper things on a Mercedes at 1mph.
No damage, just wiped the dust off.
Month or so later, cop at my door wanting my d/l. Showed it. He kept it. Over $700 to get the Mercedes a full paint job. License gone, until the ont govt got the $$$$....
 
The idea was you put your $45 in a fund that would pay out the judgement against you when you caused an accident
The problem was when you crashed and burned and killed a truckload of babies and the judgement was in the millions; too many people just walked away.
The fund went broke... quick

If you want a good sardonic laugh, browse reddit's r/legaladvice. Half the posts are about americans going broke after getting in not at fault accidents. Uninsured drivers, under insured drivers, no uninsured driver insurance, everybody suing everybody. It's awful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom