Desjardins denies claim due to modifications

[Relax]

Forum Sponsor

Read your policy and all the documents that come with it. This is the reason to not just buy cheap and to have a good broker who advises you.

Vehicle modification causes insurance complications for Ontario man | Globalnews.ca

Desjardins Insurance refused to pay for the loss because he had modified the Subaru exhaust system without the company's knowledge or permission.

globalnews.ca

A cheap and good broker/agent/company are not mutually exclusive. On the flip side, an expensive one doesn't guarantee this doesn't happen to you either. I've been with my State Farm agent since the 80's, and stayed with them after the sale to Desjardins. My kid had an accident in her car and was still on all-seasons even though she was supposed to change to winters. No problem. My M3 has lowered suspension. When I insured it, they asked, and I told them - they said it didn't matter. No problems when I had to make a claim on that car either.

 

[Relax]

If you live in Toronto, you usually need snow tires one or two days per year. Other places, you'll need them more often. They make a difference.

They do make a difference if you want to drive aggressively. Otherwise, I've never had any issues with GOOD all-season tires.

 

[GreyGhost]

They do make a difference if you want to drive aggressively. Otherwise, I've never had any issues with GOOD all-season tires.

You don't always get the choice as to when more traction is needed. You could be driving along at 30 km/h and a knob slides out in front of you and kablammo. There are no good all season tires on ice. There are some choices that suck slightly less.

 

[Relax]

You don't always get the choice as to when more traction is needed. You could be driving along at 30 km/h and a knob slides out in front of you and kablammo. There are no good all season tires on ice. There are some choices that suck slightly less.

I've never tried Hakkapeliitta's, usually end up with Pirelli and like I said, TO ME they might be a bit better, but not by much. You need just as much situational awareness driving a car in the winter as you do riding a bike in the rain. The only reason I have snows at all is because the insurance discount pays for them.

 

[GreyGhost]

I've never tried Hakkapeliitta's, usually end up with Pirelli and like I said, TO ME they might be a bit better, but not by much. You need just as much situational awareness driving a car in the winter as you do riding a bike in the rain. The only reason I have snows at all is because the insurance discount pays for them.

My next set will probably be hakkas. I have been running Xice for decades. Wife had bridgestones on the last car and xice on this car. Bridgestones were much better than all-season but Xice is a huge step up from the bridgestones.

 

[Evoex]

Typically gone cheap. (Uniroyal, etc) on winters, as they say most days of the season common sense is enough. Mostly FWD vehicles and you’d get the occasional drift and slide in the heavier days.

Got Blizzaks for the X5 and the few snow days we had it just laughed at the weather. I’m guessing AWD with decent tires is the recipe.

 

[otwo_91]

The client didn’t honour the contract . The insurer has to prove nothing ...read your insurance documents and understand them, ignorance isn’t a defence

I disagree.

There is no reason why you would need to disclose your personal business (including modifications) to insurance companies because it is not their business and they will not be honest or act in good faith.

For an example. For some cars, the base model and the "sport" model have exactly the same specs. Meaning, they handle the same, go just as fast, same horse power, etc. Except that the sport models typically have better breaks and more warning systems such as rear cross or blind spot warning systems.

In theory, driving the sport model is actually safer and less likely to result in a collision, whereas, the sport model will be quiet considerably more expensive, simply because it says "sport." It is clear without a spec of doubt that insurance companies do not act in good faith, or have your best interest in mind, and they get away with a lot because insurance is mandatory. No one should ever be honest with insurance companies until such time that they are honest with us!

If we go by your opinion here; that they should not be accountable because of some paperwork. Then no one ever has had insurance. They WILL find a reason to deny a claim every time they want to. There will always be something silly in the paper work they can fall back on. That's why, as far as I am concerned, I would not voulanterilly tell them about my modifications, just to voulanterly give them more of my hard earned money, only for them to turn around and screw me over anyways!

I do not have to tell them if I want my windows tinted.... I do not have to tell them if I drive 10 km/h over the speed limit all the time. I do not have to tell them I changed my headlights or break lights to make the car look nicer. It's not their business how long my commute to work is. Not their business how much I drive every year. They definitely have to prove to me that my modification (be it tint, headlight) caused the accident.

At the end of the day, they did pay the kid.

 

[Superveloce]

I disagree.

There is no reason why you would need to disclose your personal business (including modifications) to insurance companies because it is not their business and they will not be honest or act in good faith.

For an example. For some cars, the base model and the "sport" model have exactly the same specs. Meaning, they handle the same, go just as fast, same horse power, etc. Except that the sport models typically have better breaks and more warning systems such as rear cross or blind spot warning systems.

In theory, driving the sport model is actually safer and less likely to result in a collision, whereas, the sport model will be quiet considerably more expensive, simply because it says "sport." It is clear without a spec of doubt that insurance companies do not act in good faith, or have your best interest in mind, and they get away with a lot because insurance is mandatory. No one should ever be honest with insurance companies until such time that they are honest with us!

If we go by your opinion here; that they should not be accountable because of some paperwork. Then no one ever has had insurance. They WILL find a reason to deny a claim every time they want to. There will always be something silly in the paper work they can fall back on. That's why, as far as I am concerned, I would not voulanterilly tell them about my modifications, just to voulanterly give them more of my hard earned money, only for them to turn around and screw me over anyways!

I do not have to tell them if I want my windows tinted.... I do not have to tell them if I drive 10 km/h over the speed limit all the time. I do not have to tell them I changed my headlights or break lights to make the car look nicer. It's not their business how long my commute to work is. Not their business how much I drive every year. They definitely have to prove to me that my modification (be it tint, headlight) caused the accident.

At the end of the day, they did pay the kid.

It’s a contract not my opinion. You are wrong . Honour the contract you want have problems. Play ignorance you will

 

[GreyGhost]

It’s a contract not my opinion. You are wrong . Honour the contract you want have problems. Play ignorance you will

Insurance must love him. Premiums collected with almost no chance of having to pay out.

 

[justride]

I haven't read fully into this but curious.
For the purpose of an argument! Hypothetically speaking if Desjardin has a clause in the contract that a say any mods will be used to denied any claims.
Now for the contract to be upheld in court does the contract have to be fair for both parties and in good faith?
Since Desjardin did end up honouring the claim would that set a precedent be used against the company or any other insurance companies in the furture?

 

[Superveloce]

I haven't read fully into this but curious.
For the purpose of an argument! Hypothetically speaking if Desjardin has a clause in the contract that a say any mods will be used to denied any claims.
Now for the contract to be upheld in court does the contract have to be fair for both parties and in good faith?
Since Desjardin did end up honouring the claim would that set a precedent be used against the company or any other insurance companies in the furture?

The insurance contract is fair and in good faith for both parties ...you pay premium and you get insurance “ SUBJECT TO YOUR POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS “ if you don’t read your policy and it’s terms that’s your fault no one else.
Desjardin or any insurer paying claims they initially denied doesn’t set a precedent. Insurers pay claims all the time as favours , it’s usually called ex gratia payments .

 

[justride]

Steve Letho practices law in Michigan, USA
Think he specializes in lemon law

 

[Evoex]

You need to read all the small print, it's where they 'getcha'.

Somewhat related; Years ago Robbers sent me a cell phone bill for $600. As i had no idea why i would be charged such an amount I reviewed my statement, it showed that my data usage was incurring charges. This was odd as I had a corporate unlimited data plan.

So i called in and discussed with a manager, after reviewing my account he advised i had been in fact sent notice 1 month in advance that my data usage policy was being amended. I got a copy of the invoice and matched it to the ones in my files and yep, it matched. About halfway down the invoice in super teensy tiny font it said "Data Policy will be changed on next billing cycle to bla bla bla". Now i typically do what i suppose most of us are; glance at the total and if it makes sense we pay it/don't stop the charge. I was kind of frustrated about the situation as in my mind Robbers shoulda been doing more to warn me of this pending change, especially if we're talking about hundreds of dollars in potential charges.

So i called back and had a 15 minute chat with a middle manager who did see my POV, most consumers probably never read the 'small print' on a monthly invoice and Robbers could have called/texted a reminder about the pending changes. In the end i paid substantially less but learned a lesson.

 

[Relax]

If you guys think this is bad, wait until you hear the horror stories of life insurance policies not paying out for similar reasons.

 

[GreyGhost]

If you guys think this is bad, wait until you hear the horror stories of life insurance policies not paying out for similar reasons.

A friend had a mess on a travel medical policy that required repatriation. She didnt mention she took a multi vitamin so they told her she was SOL for meningitis.

 

[Superveloce]

If you guys think this is bad, wait until you hear the horror stories of life insurance policies not paying out for similar reasons.

A lot of people lie on their life insurance applications. Then they die and the investigation starts . Let’s say you claim you don’t smoke , then you die and it’s proven you did smoke , or you lie about family history, or you lie about previous medical conditions ? should they still pay you? Of course not. People are stupid and think they can lie and no one will find out. Insurance companies even get your ohip records after you die....so don’t be stupid and don’t be dishonest.
People for the most part are not honest when it comes to filling out forms. It’s their fault not the insurers fault.
Don’t lie , read your policy and you will not have issues .
People think they are smart . They aren’t

 

[Superveloce]

A friend had a mess on a travel medical policy that required repatriation. She didnt mention she took a multi vitamin so they told her she was SOL for meningitis.

There is no way a multivitamin voided her policy. She’s lying .

 

[GreyGhost]

There is no way a multivitamin voided her policy. She’s lying .

Insurance ended up paying. Family paid for medical flight but they lost some time (~48 hours) while the insurance company dug their heels in. She died in canada.

 

[Superveloce]

Insurance ended up paying. Family paid for medical flight but they lost some time (~48 hours) while the insurance company dug their heels in. She died in canada.

 

[SVeezy]

A lot of people lie on their life insurance applications. Then they die and the investigation starts . Let’s say you claim you don’t smoke , then you die and it’s proven you did smoke , or you lie about family history, or you lie about previous medical conditions ? should they still pay you? Of course not. People are stupid and think they can lie and no one will find out. Insurance companies even get your ohip records after you die....so don’t be stupid and don’t be dishonest.
People for the most part are not honest when it comes to filling out forms. It’s their fault not the insurers fault.
Don’t lie , read your policy and you will not have issues .
People think they are smart . They aren’t

I agree with you for the most part and everyone should read all the contract details. However big insurance loves to exploit the details that aren’t necessarily clearly disclosed and they have the $ to swing it in their favour many times. Are there a lot of random Joe’s playing the system in their favour, absolutely. There are also a lot of times the insurer screws the consumer over a frivolous detail. Let’s start going after the system abusers/fraudulent claims and work from there but it doesn’t seem the insurance industry has any interest in that, it’s easier to just push the cost onto the consumer.


Sent from my iPhone using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

Forum Sponsor