Wyled
Well-known member
Thanks that's great to hear. Any idea who he's with?
|
|
|
Insurance for one rider with multiple bikes
- Thread starter sameoldstory
- Start date
I can check next time I see his wife. He rarely walks by and his vehicles are too loud to talk to him while he's driving.
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
Technically there's nothing stopping you from doing this, and there's no official policy stopping this from happening. Maybe they got annoyed you kept doing it lol.
Only issue is if you pull a motorcycle from a policy completely, you won't have that comprehensive/specified perils protecting from theft or fire when not being ridden.
It's a shame you can't put a motorcycle in storage like you can with cars.
I should know, but how does it work with cars? If you have two cars and are the only driver, is your premium the sum of what the two individual premiums ?
Specifically wondering about the liability part, I think it is fair for some components of comprehensive to be additive.
Specifically wondering about the liability part, I think it is fair for some components of comprehensive to be additive.
With cars, some insurance companies let you remove liability and just leave fire and theft on. You obviously cant legally drive them in the road in that state. Most wont let you do it perpetually. If you do it for more than six months a year, they sometimes send you a grumpy letter and/or cancel coverage on the car.
If you go way back in history, TD bought Canada Life to get into the insurance business. Canada Life sold motorcycle insurance and the motorcycle insurance department was basically one guy (I can't remember his name) and that one guy rode. I met him on the bike show circuit and he was a nice guy that would bend over backwards for his customers. I had an EX insured with them... that they had totaled and paid out on three times, my policy had a page of riders; mostly modifications to the bike. Fax him on Thursday about a policy change, and the change was in effect Friday. It was great.
TD bought Canada Life, buddy lost his job and I got a registered letter that TD was not going to renew the policy on that bike ever again.
It makes perfect sense to me for fire and theft premiums to be completely additive: if I have two cars in my garage, it seems like I might be twice as likely to have one of them stolen, so those premiums ought to be about twice as much as insuring a single car (I could even see that it might be *more* than twice as likely to have one car stolen).
I'm wondering about the liability component : if I want to be able to drive either of my two cars A and B at any time without giving the insurer notice about which car I intend to drive, is it:
1) liability premium = (liability premium for A) + (liability premium for B) (completely additive), or
2) Is there a slight discount, or
3) Is the liability premium equal to the greater of the liability premiums for A and B? (i.e. recognizing that I can only drive one vehicle at a time)?
I know there are complicating factors like maybe I lend my car to someone and s/he gets in a crash at the same time I do, but the probability of those scenarios seems like it would be low and in any case, could be modeled by actuaries.
Option 2 is most common. Something like 5 or 10% discount on all vehicles once you have more than one. Option 3 never happens in ontario.
That sucks. I guess there aren't that enough people who are the sole drivers of multiple vehicles to create enough of an opportunity and market for an innovative insurer to step in and exploit.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
In Ontario Insurance is a cartel of sorts, prices and program features are quite similar. There is little incentive to innovate.
Why would you? If the market supports $1000 plus $1000, why would you come it at $1000? Maybe aim for $1900 but I doubt existing players would let you gain a monopoly if you tried to shake things up. Collectively, they have more political donations than you. One rule change and you are screwed.
Relax
Well-known member
A rule for price fixing?
EDIT: OK, price fixing may not be the correct term, but you know what I mean.
I don't think it is an unwillingness to innovate or to be creative, it's a determination to maximize profits by mandating coverages that make insurance companies the most revenue and profit. The insurance industry, by and large, sets self serving minimums, types of coverage and all sorts of rules and regulations that benefit the industry. You, as a customer, are the absolute last consideration in the equation. The insurance industry is huge and its lobbyist have significant sway with government.
Customers are able to get multi policy discounts. So if you have your home, cottage, vehicles, toys insured with one company you pay the full cost for each element and then an overall discount may be applied.
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
All insurance companies allow for "suspension of coverage" (OPCF 16). It strips liability/collision by about 90%, accident benefits/others by about 50%, while leaving comprehensive/specified perils coverage while not being driven.
This is not accurate. FSRA creates/regulates auto in Ontario, therefore Ontario auto insurance policies are identical. Only differences between companies are how they rate risk, and some of the marketing on OPCF (endorsements) products.
Last edited:
Try and leave a vehicle like that for 12 months and see what happens. Tdmm sends you a registered letter that you have been cancelled and you cant convince them to keep it going even if you want a full policy again. Need to reapply with new appraisal (agreed value policy).
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
To clarify, did they cancel, or remove the vehicle? Extremely different from one another. If your vehicle is 15 years old or older, you need an appraisal to add collision/comprehensive coverages. It may be that when an underwriter was preparing your renewal they flagged your vehicle as being undriven for an extended period of time, and chose to remove that specific vehicle. To re-add it with collision/comprehensive, you'd need to submit a recent appraisal.
They removed the vehicle. Other vehicles on the policy remained. They said that if you exceeded six months without liability, their policy was to remove all coverage from vehicle.
Jay Alexander
Well-known member
Damn that sucks. I think you got a crappy underwriter. I've seen policies with cars suspended for longer than that period, even on renewal terms as well. You had bad luck man
Come on, get real. Are you seriously trying to tell us the FSRA operates completely at arm's length from the insurance industry or that the insurance industry did not have huge, overwhelming influence on the setting or structure of insurance coverage and standards.
Also, disclosure please, are you involved in the insurance industry?
|
|
|
|
|