Time to revisit no fault insurance

[kwtoxman]

ON residents are killed in insurance. Will government ever change it?

http://www.wheels.ca/news/its-time-to-revisit-no-fault-insurance/

 

[dasiffy]

i believe the system in quebec is, that accidents have set fines, and your not allowed to sue the other driver. If you get hurt there is a set payout that you get and that's it. no suing.

-could be wrong

 

[murf]

In Quebec you cant sue for pain and suffering. Also, in the event of death the family can only get up to $160K max.....dependent on salary. Its less if the person makes less than something like $65K a year.

 

[Platinum Cycle]

That was kind of a useless article. It offered no real solutions or alternatives. Going back to a tort based system will create all kinds of administrative nightmares which will require more staff for the insurers, which translates into higher expenses for the insurers = higher premiums for you and me.

Towards the end the author alluded to insurers paying claims for "depreciated value". i.e. your 2012 Corvette gets in a collision, the insurance pays $20 000 to fix it but now instead of being worth $70 000 like every other Corvette it's "depreciated value" is now $60 000. That means that person should get paid another $10 000 on top of the $20 000 paid to fix the car. Think about it, if insurance companies also have to start paying this how do you think they will afford it. They just raise premiums to pay for the expected cost of claims.

Heck, if customers want a brand new car every time their car gets in an accident insurance companies would gladly pay for it (trust me it would make settling claims easier), but can you imagine the premiums we would pay then?

 

[油井緋色]

....I'm just going to blame Ragu.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

That was kind of a useless article. It offered no real solutions or alternatives. Going back to a tort based system will create all kinds of administrative nightmares which will require more staff for the insurers, which translates into higher expenses for the insurers = higher premiums for you and me.

Towards the end the author alluded to insurers paying claims for "depreciated value". i.e. your 2012 Corvette gets in a collision, the insurance pays $20 000 to fix it but now instead of being worth $70 000 like every other Corvette it's "depreciated value" is now $60 000. That means that person should get paid another $10 000 on top of the $20 000 paid to fix the car. Think about it, if insurance companies also have to start paying this how do you think they will afford it. They just raise premiums to pay for the expected cost of claims.

Heck, if customers want a brand new car every time their car gets in an accident insurance companies would gladly pay for it (trust me it would make settling claims easier), but can you imagine the premiums we would pay then?

This already exists, but it is optional coverage. Also it is only available on fairly new vehicles, i.e. you can't option the coverage on the 1997 Ford Taurus you just bought.

 

[Platinum Cycle]

This already exists, but it is optional coverage. Also it is only available on fairly new vehicles, i.e. you can't option the coverage on the 1997 Ford Taurus you just bought.

You're confusing that with the OPCF 43R endorsement. All that does is pay for OEM parts and will pay the original replacement cost if the car is a total. I has nothing to do with paying depreciated value in cases where the vehicle is repaired, that's somethig totally different.

 

[fastar1]

Just got my renewal papers today. 11% increase. Over two years the increase has been 25%, with absolutely no changes to my record or my vehicle or my location. I'm just paying for more fraudsters.

The government could make 'silent witness' cameras mandatory for all licensed vehicles. Shouldn't be more than a one-time cost of about $100, and could save ten times that in yearly insurance rates.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

You're confusing that with the OPCF 43R endorsement. All that does is pay for OEM parts and will pay the original replacement cost if the car is a total. I has nothing to do with paying depreciated value in cases where the vehicle is repaired, that's somethig totally different.

Ooohhh ... I get it now. Eh. I don't know if much of a loss in value is actually realized - people will take a fairly minor discount to get past the car being in an "accident", which was itself minor if it was unable to write off the vehicle.

 

[Corey McNeely]

The physical damage payments the insurance companies make is not what is causing your rates to increase its the injury costs. Also no fault is a good system as you are taken care of right away by your insurance company regardless of fault. For example in Alberta, if you get into an accident which is not your fault but you have liability only. You have to wait for the third party insurance company to except fault and then you have to deal with them to get the repairs done. This can take a minimum of days, weeks and even up to a year before repairs to your car is done. They don't have clear fault determination rules as they do in Ontario which makes the settlement on fault even stickier.