2nd Bike Coverage | GTAMotorcycle.com

2nd Bike Coverage

M

Merkid

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
There was a time a few years ago that i was able to secure insurance on my 2nd bike for a typical weekend if I faxxed a request by midnight on any Friday. This was allowed on the basis that the 1st bike would not be used during that time. I was cautioned that I would be only allowed to have this done a few times per year of coverage. It didn't last of course and my Insurer killed off that nice provision upon a new renewal.

My renewal for my primary bike is due in a month so am asking if anyone here has found an Insurer that will reasonably insure a 2nd bike ?
 
I just renegotiated my insurance rates - yes, you can do that.
Their original proposal was $1,350 for the Tuono and $1,280 for the Versys = $2,630 for both.
I called them and told them they needed to do better. After some back and forth we settled on a total of $1,881 total for both.
I’m happy with the outcome. My coverage remains the same so I didn’t have to sacrifice coverage for savings. We’ll see what next year brings though.
 
Merkid said:
...
My renewal for my primary bike is due in a month so am asking if anyone here has found an Insurer that will reasonably insure a 2nd bike ?
Click to expand...
Never experienced it. I have had insurance providers insure one of my bikes and refuse to insure me on the better one, so I had to deal with 1 broker and 1 other provider and they wanted me to bring along a car to bundle. Broker got very upset when he lost one of my cars.
 
Basically what @Mad Mike does is insure one bike, then call in to switch the policy to another bike. I talked to my Desjardins agent about this, and she said no problem, they can do the same thing, but thought that it was an administrative hassle that might get your policy cancelled if you did it too often - like every week. Also check with @NFP Moto also. He seems to be rider friendly and suggested an interesting "hack" to get fire/theft/comprehensive insurance without liability for bikes you own but don't ride - you buy full coverage insurance then request the liability be removed right after the policy is in place. Presumably you can also request the liability to be reinstated, but not sure what the minimum time frame would be.
 
FWIW, I think this is fundamentally flawed. As an operator you can only use one vehicle at a time so the individual should be insured and the vehicle covered for incidentals like vadalism, fire/theft. If this was the case, you could own as many vehicles as your heart desired and be covered. naturally there would have to be provisions in place for the insurance company to avoid fraud but I think we are smart enough to figure that out.

The sky is all kinds of weird colours in my world so I know this will never happen.
 
Last edited:
It might not make "sense" so I wont attempt to justify it, just try to explain it. Motorcycle insurance works the same as auto insurance in most ways. Though one person that owns 4 bikes cannot ride them all at the same time, vehicle insurance in North America also covers anyone with a valid license that you allow to ride your bike. Once you hand over the keys to a buddy they are covered under your policy (understanding that in the case of a crash you still have to make the phone call). I personally swap bikes with friends regularly. So insurance companies look at it like you (or a friend) can ride any of those bikes at any time which is why the liability still stays on. The only way around this is that removal of liability endorsement (OPCF39) which is a form that you sign off on stating NO ONE will be riding the bike at all (not even you). That leaves it just on Comprehensive (fire, theft, vandalism, flood, etc) but this only works when you have multiple bikes and at least one of them is insured fully. Turnaround time to set that up and/or set that back to normal is between 24 and 48 hrs
 
NFP Moto said:
It might not make "sense" so I wont attempt to justify it, just try to explain it. Motorcycle insurance works the same as auto insurance in most ways. Though one person that owns 4 bikes cannot ride them all at the same time, vehicle insurance in North America also covers anyone with a valid license that you allow to ride your bike. Once you hand over the keys to a buddy they are covered under your policy (understanding that in the case of a crash you still have to make the phone call). I personally swap bikes with friends regularly. So insurance companies look at it like you (or a friend) can ride any of those bikes at any time which is why the liability still stays on. The only way around this is that removal of liability endorsement (OPCF39) which is a form that you sign off on stating NO ONE will be riding the bike at all (not even you). That leaves it just on Comprehensive (fire, theft, vandalism, flood, etc) but this only works when you have multiple bikes and at least one of them is insured fully. Turnaround time to set that up and/or set that back to normal is between 24 and 48 hrs
Click to expand...

Give me a form to sign that says I will never loan out my bike, they will only ever be ridden by me.
If someone signs and then loans out a bike they are in violation of the agreement and not covered.
Charge me full rate for full coverage on my most expensive bike to insure, add a fire/theft charge for bike #2.
Problem solved.

The only reason this doesn’t happen is greed, plain and simple. Insurance companies know that if someone is in the financial position to have multiple bikes, they likely will regardless of how the insurance is charged. Same way as insurance companies will also charge someone a rate based on how much they think they can charge the client and still get away with it - and please don’t tell me this doesn’t happen because I know it happens.

Insurance in Ontario is corrupt. Anyone trying to convince me it isn’t is lying through their teeth.
 
Katatonic said:
Give me a form to sign that says I will never loan out my bike, they will only ever be ridden by me.
If someone signs and then loans out a bike they are in violation of the agreement and not covered.
Charge me full rate for full coverage on my most expensive bike to insure, add a fire/theft charge for bike #2.
Problem solved.

The only reason this doesn’t happen is greed, plain and simple. Insurance companies know that if someone is in the financial position to have multiple bikes, they likely will regardless of how the insurance is charged. Same way as insurance companies will also charge someone a rate based on how much they think they can charge the client and still get away with it - and please don’t tell me this doesn’t happen because I know it happens.

Insurance in Ontario is corrupt. Anyone trying to convince me it isn’t is lying through their teeth.
Click to expand...
Passenger is another part of that. You should get a break when you pull the passenger pegs, or your license restrictions prevent you from taking on a passenger, but that's not the practice.
 
Katatonic said:
Give me a form to sign that says I will never loan out my bike, they will only ever be ridden by me.
If someone signs and then loans out a bike they are in violation of the agreement and not covered.
Charge me full rate for full coverage on my most expensive bike to insure, add a fire/theft charge for bike #2.
Problem solved.

The only reason this doesn’t happen is greed, plain and simple. Insurance companies know that if someone is in the financial position to have multiple bikes, they likely will regardless of how the insurance is charged. Same way as insurance companies will also charge someone a rate based on how much they think they can charge the client and still get away with it - and please don’t tell me this doesn’t happen because I know it happens.

Insurance in Ontario is corrupt. Anyone trying to convince me it isn’t is lying through their teeth.
Click to expand...

I had a collector car insured through a specialist company - Hagerty. They have figured out how to do this so it is absolutely possible. $350/year for full coverage with restrictions that were livable.

Absolute greed. Every conversation when I have challenged a rate it has resulted in some story about how the company is losing money. This conversation usually migrates to 'we didn't make as much as predicted which didn't please the shareholders.' **** your shareholders. What about the people you provide services for. Yes, insurance companies are a for profit business and not a charity but what ROI makes you happy? Where does integrity factor into this? Why is my family paying over $10k to insure our ****? Because we can and we do. No f***ing wonder there is so much fraud. You bake a system and the people will figure a way to screw with it.

Wanna know how quickly I got a form to sign to exclude one of my daughters from my policy when she was deemed undesirable to insure. That came pretty f***ing rapidly with the caveat that if it wasn't returned by X time my coverage would be null and void.

They could figure this **** out if they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
Evoex said:
I believe a few people here swap it back and forth with a call to their insurer. I think @Mad Mike has the 411.
Click to expand...
TD Insurance has never complained. The price for my FJR and Goldwing are the same, and they drop it by about $200 for the Vstrom (then back up when I go to the l+ bikes)
 
JZ67 said:
Yes, insurance companies are a for profit business and not a charity but what ROI makes you happy?
Click to expand...
This is the biggest problem. If the government wants to mandate it, then it should be non-profit. I remember prices being (more) reasonable when it was government run.
 
Katatonic said:
In this day and age, you should be able to simply log into your insurers app and choose which bike has coverage. Change as often as you like and no calling/emailing or dealing with a live agent. Whatever bike you are not riding drops to basic fire/theft coverage.
Click to expand...
Come on, they can't even figure out how to give an accurate online quote. Except TD. Desjardins doesn't even offer an online quote - you have to call in.
 
Relax said:
Come on, they can't even figure out how to give an accurate online quote. Except TD. Desjardins doesn't even offer an online quote - you have to call in.
Click to expand...

Just because they’re unwilling to use the tools doesn’t mean they aren’t any good.
 
Last edited:
Katatonic said:
Just because they’re unwilling to use the tools doesn’t mean they aren’t any good.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Desjardins isn't good, in fact I've been happily with them since the 80's for home and daily drivers. I'm agreeing with you that the technology exists, but for some reason they haven't figured out how to implement reliably for something as inane as a quote, never mind something as critical as changing coverage on an active policy.
 
Relax said:
I'm not saying Desjardins isn't good, in fact I've been happily with them since the 80's for home and daily drivers. I'm agreeing with you that the technology exists, but for some reason they haven't figured out how to implement reliably for something as inane as a quote, never mind something as critical as changing coverage on an active policy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn’t too clear with what I wrote. I meant, just because they don’t use the tools, that doesn’t mean the tools aren’t any good.
I was defending the technology, not the insurance companies who aren’t using them.
 
Relax said:
This is the biggest problem. If the government wants to mandate it, then it should be non-profit. I remember prices being (more) reasonable when it was government run.
Click to expand...

When was Ontario auto insurance "government run"?
I have never seem a "government run" insurance system that was cheaper. The policy may be cheaper, but the shortfall is made up from general coffers, so NON users end up sponsoring YOUR insurance policy. Lower insurance rates for the driver, higher taxes for ALL.

No thanks.
 
bitzz said:
When was Ontario auto insurance "government run"?
I have never seem a "government run" insurance system that was cheaper. The policy may be cheaper, but the shortfall is made up from general coffers, so NON users end up sponsoring YOUR insurance policy. Lower insurance rates for the driver, higher taxes for ALL.

No thanks.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I recall something about insurance privatization in the 90's? Regardless, there's a big difference between running a business non-profit and running it at a loss. Did our taxes go down after ANY of the other privatizations?

Edit: Ok, I cant seem to find anything on insurance privatization in Ontario back then, so I must have been thinking of something else or imagining it altogether.
Forum Sponsor
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom