|
|
|
Insurance rates after a 172 or careless
- Thread starter Wileo
- Start date
I don't have personal experience with this, but odds are that your insurance company would drop you, flat. Since no company wants to take on a new client who has a major offence on his record, that means you would be forced to obtain a Facility policy. It wouldn't be out of line for that to result in premiums of $6K+, for basic coverage.
With careless, your insurance premiums will probably double or triple. Depending on your prior driving history, your insurance company may refuse to renew your policy and others may not insure you. HTA 172 - highly unlikely your insurance company would let you renew or any other insurance company would insure you. Your only option then is the Facility Association - a not-for-profit association of insurance brokers who offer the basic amount of insurance.
Doesn't facility insurance have a limit they can charge? I think I read that somewhere, but I'm not 100% sure.
I've heard that in some cases people got considerably better quotes from facility insurance than they did from regular insurance. In essence, regular guys were giving them crazy quotes just to discourage them while facility was more reasonable and realistic. However, that information may be stale too - they change laws all the time and they just did recently.
I don't think you'll get too many actual responses from folks that continued with paying insurance after a major conviction. Probably converted to track use or sold or parked for a few years. It's hard enough to pay for insurance for a vehicle, let alone a bike after a major conviction.
Most insurance companies will cancel upon renewal. After that, it's facility.
Most insurance companies will cancel upon renewal. After that, it's facility.
ONTARIO AUTO INSURANCE
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
"Note: The maximum surcharge the Facility Association applies is 250%."
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
"Note: The maximum surcharge the Facility Association applies is 250%."
That's just the surcharge. It doesn't say anything about the basic rates offered by facility for a given driver/rider and vehicle profile. Given that Facility rates can already be significantly higher than those offered by the standard market providers, any surcharge on top of that would hurt that much more.
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that. In cases like this I would get a quote from facility anyway since it may end up being less than standard insurance provider's.
FYI: When I was young and stupid(er) I was "un-insurable" which means the Ombudsman had to "assign" a company to insure me. The guidelines they set for the company was "300% more then the best rate that could be found in non-facility using the maximum allowable convictions, plus 20% surcharge for every minor conviction up to a maximum surcharge of 250%". I had 26 convictions so I was paying $925/mo for insurance for a while.
And a non-related picture I thought you might like:
-Jamie M.
Wow! I don't know what's more shocking, 26 convictions or $11,000+/year. I'm glad that's all behind you and I hope no innocent people suffered any consequences of your actions.
Me like
. There's just one line missing: This particular version (the King James Bible) has undergone three revisions incorporating more than 100,000 changes since its inception in 1611. God is neither it's author nor the editor.Read this article on Bible.org for more details.
I like to stick this warning on those Gideon Bibles wherever I find them:
No men, women, children, animals or vehicles were harmed in the process. It was always stupid stuff like tint too dark, stereo too loud, headlights too blue, etc.
lol =) I thought you might like that.Me like
-Jamie M.
I'm glad to hear that. A slap on the wrist for victimless crimes like those is justifiable, but a prolonged financial rape is not. Especially since it boosts insurance provider's coffers instead of being used for education and prevention. However, we have to be realistic and concede that 26 convictions did show a pattern of reckless behavior. Financial consequences should stop as fast as they started once that pattern is broken though.
BTW, check out Simon's blog. There are some interesting questions addressed there, like: Do Your Driving Convictions Really Disappear After 3 Years?
I did not read the blog but I can attest to two things:
1. Insurance companies have a super hidden list of everything you've ever done bad in your life, and they share it with every other insurance company. They are not allowed to say directly to your face they are using that list as reasons they won't take you as a customer, etc., they'll come up with some other excuse, but they know all about you.
2. The answer to the 3 years thing should read like "Insurance companies are not allowed to directly punish you for convictions over 3 years old."
By NO means are they gone. Example: In my criminal case "they" submitted to evidence, a photograph of me taken approx 4 years ago while I was under surveillance, like amazing DSLR quality as if someone was riding on my hood, of me in my G35 doing 193km/h on the 401 (that super boring stretch out of london heading east), overlayed with speed readings, etc. The smile on my face was from ear to ear, the back seat piled right to the roof with (legal) guns. I flip the photo over and BOOM, there is every single ticket I got EVER, including one when I was 14 and had no license! Every conviction, what I plead it down to, how fast I paid the fine, etc!!! So for special stuff I guess the courts can pull your driving record, but the average joe doesn't have access past 3 years.
My lawyer said the reason it was in there was to try and prove it showed how reckless I was, especially "with the guns" lol. He got it tossed which sucked because that meant I didn't get a copy of the photo to keep!
-Jamie M.
|
|
|
|
|