Reading into the FAQ, it sounds like they're lobbying against government mandated minimum coverage, effectively to bring our insurance a step closer to what they have in the US. Like making accident benefits optional, and potentially not having to get it on all vehicles (essentially paying for it multiple times). The flip side is that it also means someone who doesn't know better could under-insure themselves into trouble. Something along the lines of how the government reduced our minimum accident benefits coverage in the past, but it only reduced our cost my a few percent. Not sure if this will be a good or bad thing - depends on how significant the cost difference work out to.
This sounds exactly like what they did the last time, which is simply reducing minimums. Hell No
Edit: I don't understand what their motivation would be for advocating for this kind of change. How do they benefit? More predictable average claim costs?
This sounds exactly like what they did the last time, which is simply reducing minimums. Hell No
Edit: I don't understand what their motivation would be for advocating for this kind of change. How do they benefit? More predictable average claim costs?
This is IBC cartel stuff -- don't think for a moment it's about your well-being.
For years IBC has lobbied for the system we have in place today, it ensures stable costs and profits for all members.
They lobbied and negotiated the rules with FICO (Govy), and have a happy relationship that includes generous exchanges with OHIP. They asked and got Gov't to include mandatory stuff, they lobbied for the full cost of fraud to be borne by consumers (without an obligation for them to investigate), they created the enormous barriers to competition by making it almost impossible for new market entrants, they are the ones who will shun members who propose innovative cost-saving products, (i.e blanket liability), and they fight to keep public transparency out.
Unless you're an insurance insider, IBC is not your friend -- think "wolf in sheep's clothing".
This is IBC cartel stuff -- don't think for a moment it's about your well-being.
For years IBC has lobbied for the system we have in place today, it ensures stable costs and profits for all members.
They lobbied and negotiated the rules with FICO (Govy), and have a happy relationship that includes generous exchanges with OHIP. They asked and got Gov't to include mandatory stuff, they lobbied for the full cost of fraud to be borne by consumers (without an obligation for them to investigate), they created the enormous barriers to competition by making it almost impossible for new market entrants, they are the ones who will shun members who propose innovative cost-saving products, (i.e blanket liability), and they fight to keep public transparency out.
Unless you're an insurance insider, IBC is not your friend -- think "wolf in sheep's clothing".
They've optimized profit within the system so now you need to make changes to allow for a windfall.
Tbh, I am far more concerned with property insurance than auto insurance. Lots of big events every year, it's going to start to become prohibitively expensive or impossible to get. Florida is probably the canary that we get to watch to see what that looks like. As insurance companies continue to increase exclusions, banks will start to get touchy with mortgages on properties that could legitimately drop to close to zero. Obviously worse close to large bodies of water right now but BC forest fires are quickly catching up and not many houses outside of cities in BC are far from water and trees. Hell, even the trick they pulled a few years ago reducing basement water damage to 15K is rough. Not remotely close to the insurance required. To get a limit that was reasonable (100+), they wanted thousands a year in extra premium. Premium sure as hell didn't drop by thousands a year when they limited the liability.
Ontario’s 2022 budget proposes to create more choice for auto insureds, crack down on fraud and provide guidance on territorial rating.
www.canadianunderwriter.ca
IBC wants control of the narrative so they're getting out front now. Public opinion counts -- if they hang the blame on the gov't and make themselves the heroes, they gain political leverage. That helps them get what they want.
IBC 'arrangements' aren't getting approved at Ruth's Chris with Wynne and Deluca these days. I suspect they are watching how the 39K is not enough campaign is duping a lot of the public, they will try the same.
This is IBC cartel stuff -- don't think for a moment it's about your well-being.
For years IBC has lobbied for the system we have in place today, it ensures stable costs and profits for all members.
They lobbied and negotiated the rules with FICO (Govy), and have a happy relationship that includes generous exchanges with OHIP. They asked and got Gov't to include mandatory stuff, they lobbied for the full cost of fraud to be borne by consumers (without an obligation for them to investigate), they created the enormous barriers to competition by making it almost impossible for new market entrants, they are the ones who will shun members who propose innovative cost-saving products, (i.e blanket liability), and they fight to keep public transparency out.
Unless you're an insurance insider, IBC is not your friend -- think "wolf in sheep's clothing".
CRTC is another area I spent a little of time working. It's a big clumsy bureaucracy, largely filled with people not good enough to have powerful jobs in the telecom market.
Telcos gave incredible leverage, they also have legal, technical, and marketing resources and the braintrust to run over the CRTC.
I don't think "No Fault" is particularly troublesome, if we regress to the old form of determining fault, we have insurers battling insurers, plus you invite lawyers to the trough. This doesn't serve insurers or the insured very well.
The big issues are mandatory components which are often paid for multiple times without insurers underwriting multiple risks, runaway fraud, court-litigated settlements, and payout transparency. These are the 'killer' issues with auto insurance.
There are also some fundamental issues with IBC facilitating an insurance cartel, particularly when it comes to rate setting. Actuarial data used for rate setting is closely guarded by IBC and insurers. In Ontario, crash and payout data is secret, rates seem tied to a driver's capacity to pay rather than actuarial risk. IBC shares payout data summary -- but never discloses details and vigorously opposes any rules that would add transparency to claims data. Look over the info they supply to insurers for rate setting -- it looks more like a business plan designed to extort from those with more disposable income based on their car choices. If you compare their data to other jurisdictions -- it doesn't add up.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.canadianunderwriter.ca
