Loophole or scam?

Robp said:
I have to wonder what kind of parent would do this for their kid. I sure as hell wouldn't, because I've tried to teach mine to be a good responsible productive member of society....
Click to expand...
I did it for my daughter,thats how i got into riding.I dont think its illegal as we where both on the ownership and insurance.
 
nearace said:
I did it for my daughter,thats how i got into riding.I dont think its illegal as we where both on the ownership and insurance.
Click to expand...

Although I disagree with what you did, it seems like you actually had the intention of riding. I think that's a little different scenario than this kid.
 
nearace said:
I did it for my daughter,thats how i got into riding.I dont think its illegal as we where both on the ownership and insurance.
Click to expand...

If you told her insurance that she was living in your house and had a licence your okay. If you didn't and she was riding it they could have denied the claim based on misrepresenting. Thats the difference here
 
Not sure, if the circumstances are the same that the CSIB rep was advicing. IF they were advising that you can place a family member, (Who resides at the same residence), on a policy then thta is proper and as Carlos said then the premium is based on the person with the greatest risk. (in this thread that would be the son, due to age but mom isn't getting a big break either given she would be an M1).

Now on the other hand if the CSIB was advising people to do as the OP had asked "make" mom get an M1 but never ride and he was primary rider. Then that is insurance fraud and the CSIB rep could also be charged with "conselling to commit an indictable offence" (to wit insurance fraud), besides losing their job and the ability to EVER again sell insurance in Ontario. So I HIGHLY doubt this is what the CSIB rep was advising as you suggest they were.

PLau said:
Hi Carlos,

I don't know if you know this, but last year, an insurance broker from CSIB actually suggested and recommended that riders do exactly what OP is thinking of doing on GTAM (Get their parents to get a license and insure them as primary).

I wouldn't call what hes asking pathetic as I'm sure the rider's friends are doing the same as well if that's they suggested.

The OP was asking a question to see if this was legal or not and got his answer. Whether he listens to what he was told is his own decision - even if it's the wrong one.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying CSIB as a whole was bad, as I was insured with you guys at one point. It's just that people that aren't educated in the field of insurance don't know.

Side note: The user seems to have disappeared and posts have been cleaned up. Though there are some posts referencing those suggestions floating around.
Click to expand...
 
Here's another reason NOT to do this.
If you 'lay 'er down' or hit someone and pick yourself up an at fault accident, you will also be hammering your dear old mom with an at fault. BOTH the driver (rider) AND owner of the vehicle get dinged in a situation like this.
This is a terrible terrible idea and you WILL get caught!
 
nobbie48 said:
Now if we could only get the insurance companies to ream a bunch of these scam artists we would theoretically see lower rates. Throw everyone involved in the scam into facility.
Click to expand...

The truth is, the cost to prove and convict is higher than simply paying the claim. In Ontario, it's legislated Insurance Companies must pay the coverages of benefits unless it's proven the claimant is fraudulent or was doing something illegal to warrant denial of the claim. They risk huge fines and penalties for denying coverage. And their reputation. So, it cost them the claim costs AND the investigation AND the legal cost. Law enforcement only gets involved when there is enough evidence. Even then, the prosecution looks at the likelihood of conviction and looks for a settlement of sorts which allows the insurance company to deny any further payment but, doesn't likely get anything back from their efforts.

They do investigate and pursue fraudsters and folks trying to make frivolous claims. The watershed is just too much to handle.
 
nakkers said:
The truth is, the cost to prove and convict is higher than simply paying the claim. In Ontario, it's legislated Insurance Companies must pay the coverages of benefits unless it's proven the claimant is fraudulent or was doing something illegal to warrant denial of the claim. They risk huge fines and penalties for denying coverage. And their reputation. So, it cost them the claim costs AND the investigation AND the legal cost. Law enforcement only gets involved when there is enough evidence. Even then, the prosecution looks at the likelihood of conviction and looks for a settlement of sorts which allows the insurance company to deny any further payment but, doesn't likely get anything back from their efforts.

They do investigate and pursue fraudsters and folks trying to make frivolous claims. The watershed is just too much to handle.
Click to expand...

The people that should have been on top of this didn't do their jobs so the fraud escalated. The government officials that let it happen still get paid as do the insurance company CEOs.

It can be fixed but it would take guts. Start hammering every person involved in any way and at any cost. Publicize the crap out of convictions. Make the penalties brutal, lost house, jail time etc. Then you will see the number of fraud cases drop to a manageable size.

This will not happen because we are too "Nice". We are too politically correct.

This is what happens when we are too gutless to deal with small problems as they arise. They grow into massive ones.

To fix the problem we have to resort to Gestapo tactics and that isn't something our government would do. Oh wait, we have HTA 172. There's a precedent. The difference is that HTA 172 makes the government money. Pursuing criminals costs the government money.

The various governments have so badly screwed up our economy that they only have two interests, revenue and self preservation of their own jobs, pensions and perks.
 
If they are serious about preventing fraud, why not bring our rates in line.
 
Start with a Honda CBR 125R or something like that, that's what I bought. In 2 or 3 years when you have experience and respect for the torque you'll be a safe driver. The high insurance is because you're more likely to seriously injure yourself and others.
Please don't commit fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom