Was talking to someone about insurance and they mentioned that he only gets comprehensive on the motorcycle and not the collision portion and thus save quite a bit of $$$ on premiums... want to see what are the downsides to this?
|
|
|
General question about insurance
- Thread starter Homme007
- Start date
Downside is you are on the hook if you screw up. It's the way I do it
Sent from the future
Biggest downside is you have exposed yourself to the towtruck mafia. My brother didn't have collision as he had an old vehicle. His wife crashed and when they tried to get it out 24 hours later, tow company had washed it through three companies (dispatch, tow and storage all had separate invoices), storage was hundreds a day, they wouldn't take the scrap as payment and the storage clock kept running until he paid the invoice in full and removed his scrap. He won't have a vehicle without collision again.
You need PL/PD to license a vehicle in Ontario (PL = personal liability, PD = property damages).
Does your friend only buy PL/PD? Lots of people only buy PL/PD... like me.
It sounds like you don't really understand insurance coverage in Ontario
PL/PD fixes your vehicle when you aren't at fault
Collision fixes your vehicle when you are at fault
Comprehensive is mostly everything else. (Insurance has to blame someone, to hold someone responsible for the damages. Comp kicks in when they can't blame the damages on someone)
Does your friend only buy PL/PD? Lots of people only buy PL/PD... like me.
It sounds like you don't really understand insurance coverage in Ontario
PL/PD fixes your vehicle when you aren't at fault
Collision fixes your vehicle when you are at fault
Comprehensive is mostly everything else. (Insurance has to blame someone, to hold someone responsible for the damages. Comp kicks in when they can't blame the damages on someone)
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
DCPD (direct compensation property damage) fixes your vehicle when you aren't at fault, not liability.
Edit: To add in for clarity, liability covers bodily injury and property damage to others when you're responsible.
Last edited:
And now you can opt out of dcpd and be sol and paying even when it's not your fault.
Sent from the future
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
This is so stupid - people who don't know any better and remove it will be getting screwed over.
Malks
Well-known member
If your vehicle has a bank loan on it you are probably required to have collision coverage on it by your lender. If the vehicle is older, or has no bank loan you can choose to drop the collision portion. Downside is that any damage caused where you are at fault, your vehicle repairs are not covered.
My 27 year old bike is simply too old to consider having collision, or even fire & theft coverage for that matter, so I opted out of those years ago.
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
I'd urge anyone to do the price comparisons before opting out of vehicle damage coverages.
I pay about $20-30 per year for a $100 deductible comprehensive on each of my bikes (my main concern is theft, but it also covers other perils). It's often not much more expensive to add on collision/comprehensive to motorcycles.
Not certain but I THINK comprehensive is bundled with theft
True, but even $30 is better in my pocket than theirs for something I will never choose to use.
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
For me, I'd rather pay $30 knowing I'm covered if my bike is stolen.
Comprehensive covers multiple perils, including theft.
Me too, I was referring to collision which I've never had on an MC and have dropped from my 9 year old truck. as well.
Malks
Well-known member
I've looked at the cost for each of those coverages. At one time I had fire & theft on the ST. However, I dropped it about five years ago because, let's face it, who is going to steal a 1997 ST1100 with over 180K km on it. I mean really, I tried selling it a couple of years ago for $1500 and had just two people come and look. Over the past five years I figure I've saved at least $500 on the cost of those two policy items. I've been riding for a very long time and when I look at how much I've paid over the years for something I have never used, it ticks me off.
Flipside to that train of thought is; one incident could have paid for itself.
If you save $100 a year and bike it worth $1500, that is ~one incident every 15 years to break even if you don't consider the tow truck mafia. They could easily add thousands to an incident so that pushes break even to less than one incident every 30+ years to come out ahead without insurance. Ideally, we wouldn't have dirtbag tow companies but I don't see that improving greatly any time soon.
Malks
Well-known member
I still have the required minimums. On older vehicles it just doesn't make financial sense to have collision coverage. Fire and theft is more of a value judgement, but as I said a 27 year old bike really isn't worth much and would likely get a minimal pay out from insurance.
The first few years I rode I had virtually no insurance on my bike. At one time insurance wasn't mandatory. Anyone else here remember that?
Malks
Well-known member
Well if I have an at fault accident and a dirtbag tow company takes away the wreckage of my bike, they can keep it. I will have no further use of it and I wouldn't waste my time and money trying to fix it anyway. If the collision was the other persons fault, well then that's what a bike accident lawyer is for.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way. They keep the storage clock running and sue you for the bill. By the time the lawsuit gets launched, it could easily be many many thousands. Bill is thousands on day one and storage is hundreds a day with no limit.
Beat me to it.
|
|
|
|
|