They paid the kid. You are wrong.
|
|
|
Desjardins denies claim due to modifications
- Thread starter Superveloce
- Start date
It sure looks like they paid for PR not because they believed they had to. It doesn't take much lawyering or consultant fees to vastly exceed the value of a vehicle. Hurt someone and see how well your plan works. They won't be nearly as amenable when staring at a six or seven figure issue.
Already explained that, it’s called ex gratia payments. You are still wrong and will continue to be wrong.
What Is an Ex Gratia Payment?
An ex gratia payment is made to an individual by an organization, government, or insurer for damages or claims, but it does not require the admittance of liability by the party making the payment.Ontario auto insurance brokers/agents use a standardized application form. It is a legal requirement.
One of the REQUIRED questions is: Is your vehicle modified?
If your vehicle is modified and you answer "NO", you're outside contract conditions and that contract/policy is null and void.
If your vehicle is un-modified and you answer "NO", then subsequently modify your vehicle, you're outside contract conditions and that contract/policy is null and void.
It is that simple.
An insurance policy is basically a bet. The policy writer is betting he can make money by insuring a group of drivers and cars by rating the premiums to their perceived risks. Modifications to a car could change those risks.
now you know, and I know, and the insurance company knows that an aftermarket exhaust probably isn't a big risk changer. It will make the rice burner LOUDER but it would be a bit of a stretch to say it caused buddy to rear end a car in traffic... it's possible, but highly improbable.
Now look at the pic of the Miata with the camber. It is not only possible, but almost probable, the "mods" on thing could contribute to the cause of an at-fault collision.
If that Miata was stock, not modified, if the tie rod breaks and the car kills a truck load of babies, the insurance company subrogates, or counter sues Mazda, who in turn sues who ever made the tie rod end... because Mazda makes safe cars and has to exhaustively test every part, which in turn is certified for use, by in our case, Transport Canada.
When the un-modified car breaks and causes death and destruction, it's not the insurance companies problem, they can subrogate.
When that Miata with the camber issues breaks and causes death and destruction, the insurance company is on the hook till they can figure out who to subrogate... the owner, the local shop that installed it or the owner's younger brother (he knows EVERYTHING about cars, that's why he's un-employed) that installed it or maybe the seller on Amazon where the owner bought the kit... out of some unknown factory in the east (Do we think the kit was Transport Canada approved?)
You can see why the insurance company doesn't want to get involved in this one. They've spent $250,000 in legals and collision recontruction experts and engineers and they STILL don't know who to sue.
On this one Desjardins paid out for the car, about $35,000, not a lot of money in the grand scale of things. They decided the bad optics wasn't worth $35,000.
If the payout was $2,000,000 that decision would probably be different
An aftermarket exhaust probably won't cause a collision.
Adding a wing to your 90HP Civic is PROBABLY safe... but the ground effects kit changes how a pedestrian bounces off the hood.
A lowering kit that doesn't align the tie rod ends with the control arm (pretty well EVERY one I've ever seen, it DOES change the suspension geometry and not in a good way. Some of the truck lift kits I've seen... and installed, are down right dangerous) changes the amount of "bump steer", which could easily cause a collision.
Where do we draw the line?
The easy way out, for all involved, is NO MODIFIED VEHICLES.
And not to worry about the insurance company's bottom line. Desjardin will do the guy for non-disclousure and he will be paying facility rates for 7 years. They'll get their $35,000 back.
One of the REQUIRED questions is: Is your vehicle modified?
If your vehicle is modified and you answer "NO", you're outside contract conditions and that contract/policy is null and void.
If your vehicle is un-modified and you answer "NO", then subsequently modify your vehicle, you're outside contract conditions and that contract/policy is null and void.
It is that simple.
An insurance policy is basically a bet. The policy writer is betting he can make money by insuring a group of drivers and cars by rating the premiums to their perceived risks. Modifications to a car could change those risks.
now you know, and I know, and the insurance company knows that an aftermarket exhaust probably isn't a big risk changer. It will make the rice burner LOUDER but it would be a bit of a stretch to say it caused buddy to rear end a car in traffic... it's possible, but highly improbable.
Now look at the pic of the Miata with the camber. It is not only possible, but almost probable, the "mods" on thing could contribute to the cause of an at-fault collision.
If that Miata was stock, not modified, if the tie rod breaks and the car kills a truck load of babies, the insurance company subrogates, or counter sues Mazda, who in turn sues who ever made the tie rod end... because Mazda makes safe cars and has to exhaustively test every part, which in turn is certified for use, by in our case, Transport Canada.
When the un-modified car breaks and causes death and destruction, it's not the insurance companies problem, they can subrogate.
When that Miata with the camber issues breaks and causes death and destruction, the insurance company is on the hook till they can figure out who to subrogate... the owner, the local shop that installed it or the owner's younger brother (he knows EVERYTHING about cars, that's why he's un-employed) that installed it or maybe the seller on Amazon where the owner bought the kit... out of some unknown factory in the east (Do we think the kit was Transport Canada approved?)
You can see why the insurance company doesn't want to get involved in this one. They've spent $250,000 in legals and collision recontruction experts and engineers and they STILL don't know who to sue.
On this one Desjardins paid out for the car, about $35,000, not a lot of money in the grand scale of things. They decided the bad optics wasn't worth $35,000.
If the payout was $2,000,000 that decision would probably be different
An aftermarket exhaust probably won't cause a collision.
Adding a wing to your 90HP Civic is PROBABLY safe... but the ground effects kit changes how a pedestrian bounces off the hood.
A lowering kit that doesn't align the tie rod ends with the control arm (pretty well EVERY one I've ever seen, it DOES change the suspension geometry and not in a good way. Some of the truck lift kits I've seen... and installed, are down right dangerous) changes the amount of "bump steer", which could easily cause a collision.
Where do we draw the line?
The easy way out, for all involved, is NO MODIFIED VEHICLES.
And not to worry about the insurance company's bottom line. Desjardin will do the guy for non-disclousure and he will be paying facility rates for 7 years. They'll get their $35,000 back.
I'm not so sure about that. Winter's now are nothing like they use to be. Roads are kept better than they ever have been. Toronto get lower snowfall than where I live in ontario. If people were to actually drive according to weather conditions and not rely upon tracking systems, abs and winter tires for poor driving habits there would be a big difference. As a professional driver I see a lot of needless accidents simply because of driver error. And even with winter tires, abs and traction control it is no substitute for good driving habits. But yes I'm sure they might help in a situation where proper driving habits like driving slower and defensive for adverse weather conditions are happening. Something that doesn't seem to happen like it should these days.
Relax
Well-known member
I'm talking about cases where they didn't lie. Of course if you get caught in a lie you shouldn't expect to be covered.
It's the family medical history where people usually have problems. That's private between the family member and the doctor. Not everyone shares their medical history with their family. So how would I know if my grandmother who I never met had cancer, for example?
Because you’re supposed to disclose it on the application. Go apply for life insurance and see the questions you are asked. It’s not private information when you’re applying for insurance. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
If the insurance company can prove that you knew and didn’t disclose it they’re going to deny the claim if the insurance company can’t prove that you knew, then they will have to pay the claim. It’s really simple.
Relax
Well-known member
And you have a comprehension problem. When I said my family's medical history is private, that meant private from ME, so I don't know every detail of their history. And you sure like to assume a lot.
Read what I posted .I acknowledged that. You have the comprehension problem. I said if you didn't know its not a problem. Don't quote only part of what i said so you can pretend to be right
Last edited:
I’ve heard this tune before ?
Relax
Well-known member
I only quoted the portion that I disagreed with. Including the portion I agreed with would just cause confusion, which I now see was inevitable.
I agree about the contract stuff. And perhaps I learned something from this. Although my car is not modified in anyway other than typical tint and of course I always change the tires over (winter and summer)
A few days ago, I called my insurance broker to tell them that I want to cancel at the conclusion of this contract. They said, they will call me back and give me new rates should I re-consider, basically to lower my premium.
On the phone, they asked me how many kilometres I drive to work. I told them 20 km. They said, we will put down 5 km to keep the premium lower. What am I supposed to do! Say no to that! Be like, no its okay, I am super ethical and I prefer to pay more even though you are trying to save me money. Of course not.
I guess this is where my opinion (not fact) comes into play. They want to keep my business so the broker is lying on my behalf to the insurer. But god forbid something terrible happens. They will use my km's against me, and they wont back me in any way, and the fact that my broker helped me secure a better premium will be denied and vanish from existence.
I get that the contract is the contract. But we can all agree the insurance brokers/companies are not ethical in the least. This is where my grievance lies.
A few days ago, I called my insurance broker to tell them that I want to cancel at the conclusion of this contract. They said, they will call me back and give me new rates should I re-consider, basically to lower my premium.
On the phone, they asked me how many kilometres I drive to work. I told them 20 km. They said, we will put down 5 km to keep the premium lower. What am I supposed to do! Say no to that! Be like, no its okay, I am super ethical and I prefer to pay more even though you are trying to save me money. Of course not.
I guess this is where my opinion (not fact) comes into play. They want to keep my business so the broker is lying on my behalf to the insurer. But god forbid something terrible happens. They will use my km's against me, and they wont back me in any way, and the fact that my broker helped me secure a better premium will be denied and vanish from existence.
I get that the contract is the contract. But we can all agree the insurance brokers/companies are not ethical in the least. This is where my grievance lies.
Relax
Well-known member
Sounds like a shady broker that just wants to keep your business any way possible. It's your signature on the policy, where you agree that you've answered all the questions truthfully without misrepresentation.
I think the interesting thing, or maybe the concering thing, would be to get an accurate definition of what type of "modification" would effectively nullify your insurance policy. Examples below.............
I think the insurance companies have a lot of discretion in how this clause is administered.
- Modified exhaust system
- Different or reflashed ECU
- Adding a turbo or supercharger
- Changing suspension components in a way that changes ride height / tire camber
- Wheels / tires that are wider / taller than stock
- fender flares / wings / air dams / splitters
- changing out OEM type brakes / rotors / calipers for performance versions
- tinted windows
I think the insurance companies have a lot of discretion in how this clause is administered.
Hagerty makes it relatively simple. If your car is stock, the premium is X. If you car is modified, tell us what you did and the premium is 2X. It doesn't appear they differentiate based on type/function/extent of mods.
Okay so how did the insurance company found out he had a modified muffler? Some of my family members have been in accidents, and even car write offs and nobody from the insurance company came to see the cars. They just asked for pics and a police report.
If you said to your insurance company that you only drive Monday to Friday to your job 15 km away and if you have an accident in Wasaga Beach on a Saturday at 12 midnight, you better hope God that they will reimburse you for the accident.
If you said to your insurance company that you only drive Monday to Friday to your job 15 km away and if you have an accident in Wasaga Beach on a Saturday at 12 midnight, you better hope God that they will reimburse you for the accident.
I camt find any pics of the exhaust in question but the kind of person that puts a $2000 exhaust on a leased car also puts huge tips with fake ti heat markings on them. The general condition pics may have shown that things were different..
Yeah okay, snow tires don't last 10 years, they only last 3 years if you buy them new. You only wear them for Christmas? I put my on from November 1st to April 15th.
Mine go on and off based on the weather. I dont know what to tell you. I bought these ones in fall 2012. I havent measured them but they are not near the bars yet. Current car is awd and I dont drive all that much right now so they will do. They are still infinitely better than the almost new all-seasons that came on the car.
|
|
|
|
|