-D-
Banned
This is funny, it would be more useful if ppl posted their info e.g. age,bike,what part of GTA, and PRICE etc...
|
|
|
SS resale prices
- Thread starter DOHC1
- Start date
-Maverick-
Well-known member
Call them and tell them you are getting an Aprilia RSV4 or MV August F4. I have 4 bikes with them, my house, sled, ATV, preferred client (University), full M 20 + years, no tickets, no claims. They told me if I took my GSX-R 1000 off, and tried to reinsure they wouldn't insure it as they are getting out of insuring sportbikes. Just my experience with them as a five year customer. . Exact words when I threatened to pull all my insurance "Sir, if I was to put the MV August F4 or Aprilia RSV4 into the system, the system would reject both." Maybe it's just liter bikes, I don't know. Post your recent experience with them as I have written mine.
Last edited:
cf1340
Well-known member
Thats interesting...."if I took my GSX-R 1000 off, and tried to reinsure they wouldn't insure it as they are getting out of insuring sportbikes"....but not in a positive way
D
Dr. Luxurious
Guest
ive got my bike and car with them ...im in the same boat as you, 20 plus yrs, no tickets,diploma...yadda yadda.
i called a couple of weeks back as im looking to upgrade the bike.
they provided quotes for a vfr800, gsxr 750 and cbr1000 no problem. nothing was mentioned about a blacklist or getting out of bikes. the only proviso was in order to get theft coverage on the cbr 1k and gixxer i would need to instal an alarm.
sounds different from your experience , so im kind of confused as to wtf is going on.
-Maverick-
Well-known member
European liter bikes only?
Edit: Just talked to Riders Plus and did a bunch of quotes. Echelon and Intact are not insuring sportbikes. TD doesn't like the MV August F4 for some reason, the F3 is on their insurable list. Put gf through the same quotes. M2, 30 yo, 0 years (self) insured, 2009 CBR 600 was $3000, 2011 Ninja 250 R was $1300. If I put her under my name the 2009 CBR 600 drops to $598, the Ninja to $250 / year. They won't insure her unless she completes a riders training course. Which brings up a new question, if I put her under my name and she writes off a bike, does it affect my insurance rates?
Last edited:
-Maverick-
Well-known member
It's time to go Russell Brand on the insurance co's. For those who don't know who he is, he's trying to start a revolution against big business. Some think he's an incarnate of Jesus. He certainly does represent what needs to happen in our time. He's got a two hour comedy on YouTube called Messiah Complex. Very funny... Jesus with a sense of humour!
https://youtu.be/WZrOrqrBnhk
https://youtu.be/jYdAQqyst8o
His version of a remedy would be to not pay the insurance co's and or start your own. I mean really, what is an insurance company, everyone throws some money into a pot and the unlucky unfortunate get to make a claim if they get hurt. In Canada, OHIP would take care of the medical costs, so why is our insurance ten times that of the US? In our (Canadian) case, all we'd have to do is get the guys / girls bike fixed or replace it. As far as theft goes, that would be an individuals problem. What would end up happening is the biker community would come together and hunt thieves. Road stunters would get both thumped and blacklisted...take it to a parking lot. Make it a flat rate $500 / year for everyone.
Last edited:
What do you mean by that exactly?
-Maverick-
Well-known member
-Maverick-
Well-known member
Which part?
Yes, if it's her fault.
Ah no as pointed out OHIP won't pay for your ambulance and emergency services, including, if required an air ambulance. Also have you seen how much has been delisted by OHIP in the last 15 years. NO rehab, (chiropractor, Physio, Massage/Laser) etc etc etc. What about dentures if your teeth get knocked out? reconstructive surgery? Limb replacement? Home care?
Ok so all riders band together, Who is going to administer it? Accept payments, issue insurance slips etc, (you would still need proof for police etc). What happens if a rider doesn't pay in, (so they are basically uninsured), and then hits someone? Currently, the other persons insurance pays up and then goes after the uninsured rider. If there is no more insurance company and their lawyers to do this who pays upfront costs? Who then goes after the uninsured rider?
What if a rider is seriously injured and needs income replacement, who administers that, and decides when it is paid out and when it is denied? Oh that's right we don't have to worry about all that all this new scheme would do is "fix or replace" your bike the rest is on the rider to cover..lmao
What happens if after say 2 years there is no money left in the "pot" then where do the required funds come from, do we as riders then just say oops sorry even though you have paid for the last two years we have no money to fix/replace your bike. Do we go back to all riders and say "we NEED an emergency top up of say $500 more this week"..lol
Insurance companies do a LOT more then just collect money and pay out very little, The courts are a public entity as long as I pay the fees to file a lawsuit then I am permitted to file, so who is going to "do away with million dollar lawsuits"? Yes while we are at it let's disband the police as riders can now "self police" and catch theives...lol Who is going to "thump and blacklist" stunters? How does one identify them? Police aren't going to turn this info over. So in essence your still going to need all those "employees" to administer this 'new non insurance company, or would you expect riders to just volunteer say 100 hours per month to administer all these functions?
There are certain entities which "self insure" such as the Military, (federal gov't), they don't carry insurance on their vehicles, because they can afford and have the facilities to fix their own vehicles plus they have lawyers on staff to deal with lawsuits etc etc. They need not worry about "income replacement" etc.
There is a reason this is all proposed by a COMEDIAN, and not someone who has actually thought it out completely. But you go ahead. I will stay where I am currently.
Ok so all riders band together, Who is going to administer it? Accept payments, issue insurance slips etc, (you would still need proof for police etc). What happens if a rider doesn't pay in, (so they are basically uninsured), and then hits someone? Currently, the other persons insurance pays up and then goes after the uninsured rider. If there is no more insurance company and their lawyers to do this who pays upfront costs? Who then goes after the uninsured rider?
What if a rider is seriously injured and needs income replacement, who administers that, and decides when it is paid out and when it is denied? Oh that's right we don't have to worry about all that all this new scheme would do is "fix or replace" your bike the rest is on the rider to cover..lmao
What happens if after say 2 years there is no money left in the "pot" then where do the required funds come from, do we as riders then just say oops sorry even though you have paid for the last two years we have no money to fix/replace your bike. Do we go back to all riders and say "we NEED an emergency top up of say $500 more this week"..lol
Insurance companies do a LOT more then just collect money and pay out very little, The courts are a public entity as long as I pay the fees to file a lawsuit then I am permitted to file, so who is going to "do away with million dollar lawsuits"? Yes while we are at it let's disband the police as riders can now "self police" and catch theives...lol Who is going to "thump and blacklist" stunters? How does one identify them? Police aren't going to turn this info over. So in essence your still going to need all those "employees" to administer this 'new non insurance company, or would you expect riders to just volunteer say 100 hours per month to administer all these functions?
There are certain entities which "self insure" such as the Military, (federal gov't), they don't carry insurance on their vehicles, because they can afford and have the facilities to fix their own vehicles plus they have lawyers on staff to deal with lawsuits etc etc. They need not worry about "income replacement" etc.
There is a reason this is all proposed by a COMEDIAN, and not someone who has actually thought it out completely. But you go ahead. I will stay where I am currently.
Last edited:
-Maverick-
Well-known member
I think you missed the point... totally.
Hmmm interesting that i dont see PP in this thread?
Could it be he thought this thread was not about insurance?
LOL too bad i love to read his "expertise" about insurance business. Some time old folks think they actually know what they're talking about just because they're old.
Bikes makers are not powerful enough to lobby politicians in this case. Looks like Canada market for SS will be less attractive now.
Could it be he thought this thread was not about insurance?
LOL too bad i love to read his "expertise" about insurance business. Some time old folks think they actually know what they're talking about just because they're old.
Bikes makers are not powerful enough to lobby politicians in this case. Looks like Canada market for SS will be less attractive now.
The last sentence.
-Maverick-
Well-known member
Meaning does adding another rider / driver to your policy put the liability of them onto you? If they have an at fault accident or get a DUI is your perfect record destroyed?
Yes MLadin if someone on your policy has a collision and they are deemed to be at fault then your policy rates will increase. The insurer doesn't care who was driving, (as long as they aren't excluded and don't have their own policy). The insurer has to pay out on an at fault claim then the premiums increase. This is why everyone needs to be aware and comfortable with anyone they put on their policy.
It is also why if a policyholder has kids and they live in the house the insurer INSISTS they are excluded on the policy or your premiums are then calculated on the higher risk of the young driver. If a policy holder says there are no other licenced drivers living in the house and the insurer finds out there are, (say in the event of a collision), then the insurer "may" deny the claim, citing insurance fraud as the reason, (because the policy holder never advised of the higher risk).
It is also why if a policyholder has kids and they live in the house the insurer INSISTS they are excluded on the policy or your premiums are then calculated on the higher risk of the young driver. If a policy holder says there are no other licenced drivers living in the house and the insurer finds out there are, (say in the event of a collision), then the insurer "may" deny the claim, citing insurance fraud as the reason, (because the policy holder never advised of the higher risk).
|
|
|
|
|