|
|
|
[CTV News] Motorcyclist shocked her insurance is discontinued
- Thread starter FLSTC
- Start date
Mango Rider
Well-known member
That makes even less sense. How is someone who doesn't have insurance but renews their M2 get any better than someone who actually rides for even half a season?
Very much a catch 22.
Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk
FLSTC
Well-known member
Aviva reveals full-year financial results
"Its general insurance combined operating ratio was relatively flat at 93.8% in the UK, compared to 93.9% a year earlier; and the same was true in Canada at 102.4% compared to 102.2%; in Europe at 93.4% compared to 93.3%; and in Asia and other markets at 122.1% compared to 123.2%."
"Its normalised COR, however, fell back – with Canada taking the bulk of the blame. It increased to 98.8% from 97.8% with Canada specifically seeing a rise from 100.7% to 103.4% “driven by adverse claims experience, predominantly on personal motor.”
So the Canadian business is paying out more in claims than it's revenues and is trending negatively.
"Its general insurance combined operating ratio was relatively flat at 93.8% in the UK, compared to 93.9% a year earlier; and the same was true in Canada at 102.4% compared to 102.2%; in Europe at 93.4% compared to 93.3%; and in Asia and other markets at 122.1% compared to 123.2%."
"Its normalised COR, however, fell back – with Canada taking the bulk of the blame. It increased to 98.8% from 97.8% with Canada specifically seeing a rise from 100.7% to 103.4% “driven by adverse claims experience, predominantly on personal motor.”
So the Canadian business is paying out more in claims than it's revenues and is trending negatively.
This is stupid. She was previously deemed worthy of insurance, she is on a modest bike, has been riding for two years, has a clean record... seems like this is straight up illegal? Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25
Also what is "decline rule 10.2"?
Also what is "decline rule 10.2"?
FLSTC
Well-known member
Looks like Aviva went to the FSCO/superintendant and filed grounds for termination of policies of riders <6yrs experience. The FSCO Superintendant would allow this if 'would impair the solvency of the insurer'. Based upon financial results, they are losing money on this segment, hence it is allowed. Probably item 10.2 in their grounds for termination filings.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
This could be dangerous territory for an insurer as it steps on the technical underwriting rule #5,
5. Rules must not be contrary to public policy
One of the standards in the Act is that rules must not be contrary to “public policy”. While it is not possible to have an unqualified definition of “public policy”, any rule filed should take into consideration the Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, underwriting rules based on religion, race, nationality or ethnic group of the applicant or individuals to be insured under the policy would be contrary to these pieces of legislation.
Examples of other factors contrary to “public policy” include declining insurance based on:
5. Rules must not be contrary to public policy
One of the standards in the Act is that rules must not be contrary to “public policy”. While it is not possible to have an unqualified definition of “public policy”, any rule filed should take into consideration the Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, underwriting rules based on religion, race, nationality or ethnic group of the applicant or individuals to be insured under the policy would be contrary to these pieces of legislation.
Examples of other factors contrary to “public policy” include declining insurance based on:
- age, sex or marital status of the individuals to be insured under the policy;
- newly licensed drivers, where this is the sole factor for the declination;
- drivers “new” to Canada;
- lapse in coverage;
- the principal location of the insured automobile, unless such a decision is for a business purpose and is not a pretext for unfair discrimination (e.g. red lining);
- the person to be insured under the policy has been convicted of an event unrelated to driving an automobile or automobile insurance;
- personal vehicles with U.S. exposure (unless in U.S. for extended period of time);
- withdrawal from a segment of the marketplace that could result in market disruption.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
This would be a hard argument to make, the solution to ratios are rate increases or fraud controls.
48Connor
Well-known member
Good to see this on CTV. I'm in the same boat - getting dropped by Aviva at the end of this month and had to find other insurance. 3 years on a DRZ; no claims, tickets, anything... My insurance payment has gone up 15% since the switch as well, which is rather unfortunate. I will be paying a few bucks a year more in year 4 of riding than I did in year 1, which doesn't make any sense.
Except that everyone who is not a motorcyclist hates motorcyclists, even if they're courteous and safe. In the public's mind this is just one less hated biker on the road.
To those people, there's a quote by Martin Niemöller that goes:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Everybody with any sort of insurance in Ontario should be worried about this practice, even if at present it's only happening to a group to which they don't belong: Eventually, they'll get to "your" group too...
You can blame Aviva. As Mike said, the solution to losing money on a segment is increasing rates on that segment. Maybe that would still necessitate a change of insurers, but at least give clients the option of staying.
Why not do that now? Everyone with a motorcycle should pull of their policies -- home/renters, umbrella, personal items, car etc -- with this company.
FLSTC
Well-known member
They are in financial trouble as per the financial report linked above - payouts more than revenues, at least in Canada that is. Will they stray into unethical areas to try to reduce any claims? If the staff bonus plan is linked to profits, it’s possible...
Just my opinion. A simple solution would be a two tier system where we also have the option of Government run insurance like they have in other Provinces. I'm curious if anyone knows how well financially they are doing. If they are profitable and it's self sustaining e.g no burden on the taxpayer. And if the rates and coverages are reasonable. Why not offer this as A solution. I'm sure the insurance companies won't like like this and will be competitive with our rates and products they offer. They have already reduced our coverages yet our rates keep going up.
BC government car insurance is a complete #%#& show. They have faiped at proper pricing for years, are losing dump truck loads of money and now are jacking premiums by something like 30 % to stay afloat.
I think saskatchewan is in better shape but IIRC they may also need to make some changes to make the model sustainable.
Part of the problem is that everything on the outlay side is so expensive: a headlight for an average new car is like $1000+ so what used to be minor fender benders now cost many thousands to fix. Sadly, medical treatment and rehab are also not cheap, especially the long-term sort...
The other part of the problem is that insurers seem to go after the victims rather than those that put us at risk. Instead of jacking up the rates (or denying/canceling coverage...) for distracted drivers, left-turners etc, insurers attack us because it's so risky out there. If they, and the law, got serious about the distracted and the myriad other behaviors that make road travel unduly risky for us (and others, like pedestrians and bicyclists etc), I think the ugly stats for motorcycle safety would moderate.
|
|
|
|
|