Why not an insurance movement by drivers? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Why not an insurance movement by drivers?

N

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Forum Sponsor
The no fault system as we know it is screwing car owners.

While we make noise about ALL the bad drivers, in reality most aren't that evil and would benefit from fair treatment by insurers.

1) Bring in diminished value coverage. If your never before damaged car is damaged by a bad driver you are given compensation for the diminished trade in value.

2) If you are injured the costs of treatment and physio are covered by the insurer, not by policies the injured party has purchased for their own protection.

3) Fair wage replacement without the victim paying for it up front. The last time I checked the present rate was about the same as the minimum wage. That doesn't pay the mortgage.

There would be a major change in insurance rate structures with a wickedly different bell curve but the change would be revenue neutral for the insurers.

An unintended consequence would be more bad drivers running dirty. I'm not a computer geek but feel the technology is there and possibly already in use to use ALPR to computer cross link with vehicles no longer insured info from the insurers.

Fines should cover the added enforcement costs so revenue neutral for the government.

What would be the costs to form an association to demand a newly elected government make the changes?

Website etc

Possibly liability insurance

Site monitoring

Advertising

Media presence

Any potential sponsorships?

What else?
 
TK4 said:
Good luck with that. The insurance lobby is VERY strong.
Click to expand...
Agree. There is also the not insignificant issue of most of the ideas costing more money. That needs to be collected from people (as well as added profit and expenses). That drives insurance cost up even more.

I still think Douggie has recurring safeties simmering. He lost a lot of political capital with his development fiascos so I'm not sure if he will enact it. Recurring safety could easily pick up road tax per km as well as a recurrent check for valid insurance. Set a huge red flag for someone that brought in a car that they have owned for a long time but only recently got insurance for. It may be legit (restoration project) but make the owner sign an affidavit that insurance will be maintained as long as vehicle is on road. That makes the court's job easier when the person clearly knew what they were doing and did it anyway.
 
TK4 said:
Good luck with that. The insurance lobby is VERY strong.
Click to expand...
We need a stronger voting lobby. Make it revenue neutral. Bad drivers pay through the nose. Ideally we get better drivers and the pool of insurance money stays the same. Fewer payouts = more profit.
 
TK4 said:
Good luck with that. The insurance lobby is VERY strong.
Click to expand...
And highly integrated with provincial regulators.

Auto insurance is complicated ball of snakes. Insurers, ICB, OHIP, FICO and the province are at the table. Lawyers and rehab industries also have lobbies dedicated to serving their interests.

Not an easy group to influence.
 
nobbie48 said:
The no fault system as we know it is screwing car owners.
Click to expand...

What specifically is screwing over drivers? If you're not aware, DCPD (direct-compensation property damage - what you refer to as "no fault") will soon be optional. You can opt out if you'd like as of the new year.

Everyone's making great points here, but no mention of FSRA. They are literally the one body that creates/regulates auto insurance in Ontario. The lobby is strong and highly tied to the governments' own interests.

No offense, but the thought of creating a website, to influence large, sweeping regulations is a little short-sighted.

nobbie48 said:
1) Bring in diminished value coverage. If your never before damaged car is damaged by a bad driver you are given compensation for the diminished trade in value.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure the intent here. Do you mean get reimbursed for the lowered-value of the vehicle, as it's already been in an accident? If so, that's a pretty good point. The problem is, if you keep the vehicle indefinitely, it makes it extremely difficult to gauge what that vehicle will be worth at x point in time.

nobbie48 said:
2) If you are injured the costs of treatment and physio are covered by the insurer, not by policies the injured party has purchased for their own protection.
Click to expand...

It already is. SABS will always be second to payout, after OHIP/your personal life/health insurance.

nobbie48 said:
3) Fair wage replacement without the victim paying for it up front. The last time I checked the present rate was about the same as the minimum wage. That doesn't pay the mortgage.
Click to expand...

Current rate for standard accident benefits is $400/week, to a maximum of 70% of gross income. I agree, this is extremely low, but you can increase this. It can already be increased up to $1000/week. Beyond that, you'd need separate insurance to cover beyond this amount.

I feel like a problem you have (also others, include myself), is how risk is rated. I agree on the use of better technology to find/penalize uninsured drivers. I also think too many drivers are paying too much for insurance - many people without any history of accidents are still seeing increases to their premiums.

Re-evaluating how risks are rated may be the issue of concern here.
 
Last edited:
Jay Alexander said:
Not quite sure the intent here. Do you mean get reimbursed for the lowered-value of the vehicle, as it's already been in an accident? If so, that's a pretty good point. The problem is, if you keep the vehicle indefinitely, it makes it extremely difficult to gauge what that vehicle will be worth at x point in time.
Click to expand...
It's much simpler. Many jurisdictions already have it. It looks at value of vehicle sold at the time of accident uncrashed vs crashed and repaired. Insurance cant look ahead but it can make you whole today. Now, if you get in a second crash with that vehicle, insurance could (rightly in my opinion) try to pay out the difference between a one crash and two crash vehicle which I expect is a far lower number.

I still don't think it will work as minimum insurance in Ontario is still expensive compared to minimum insurance in jurisdictions that offer diminished value coverage. If it was mandatory, everyone would pay more insurance, if it was optional, it would be so expensive that few would take it.
 
Jay Alexander said:
Current rate for standard accident benefits is $400/week, to a maximum of 70% of gross income. I agree, this is extremely low, but you can increase this. It can already be increased up to $1000/week. Beyond that, you'd need separate insurance to cover beyond this amount.
Click to expand...
Living on the maximum ($52K/year) is going to be tough here in the '416'. Especially if you're carrying a nasty mortgage or renting.
 
Jay Alexander said:
What specifically is screwing over drivers? If you're not aware, DCPD (direct-compensation property damage - what you refer to as "no fault") will soon be optional. You can opt out if you'd like as of the new year.

Everyone's making great points here, but no mention of FSRA. They are literally the one body that creates/regulates auto insurance in Ontario. The lobby is strong and highly tied to the governments' own interests.

No offense, but the thought of creating a website, to influence large, sweeping regulations is a little short-sighted.



Not quite sure the intent here. Do you mean get reimbursed for the lowered-value of the vehicle, as it's already been in an accident? If so, that's a pretty good point. The problem is, if you keep the vehicle indefinitely, it makes it extremely difficult to gauge what that vehicle will be worth at x point in time.



It already is. SABS will always be second to payout, after OHIP/your personal life/health insurance.



Current rate for standard accident benefits is $400/week, to a maximum of 70% of gross income. I agree, this is extremely low, but you can increase this. It can already be increased up to $1000/week. Beyond that, you'd need separate insurance to cover beyond this amount.

I feel like a problem you have (also others, include myself), is how risk is rated. I agree on the use of better technology to find/penalize uninsured drivers. I also think too many drivers are paying too much for insurance - many people without any history of accidents are still seeing increases to their premiums.

Re-evaluating how risks are rated may be the issue of concern here.
Click to expand...

GreyGhost said:
It's much simpler. Many jurisdictions already have it. It looks at value of vehicle sold at the time of accident uncrashed vs crashed and repaired. Insurance cant look ahead but it can make you whole today. Now, if you get in a second crash with that vehicle, insurance could (rightly in my opinion) try to pay out the difference between a one crash and two crash vehicle which I expect is a far lower number.

I still don't think it will work as minimum insurance in Ontario is still expensive compared to minimum insurance in jurisdictions that offer diminished value coverage. If it was mandatory, everyone would pay more insurance, if it was optional, it would be so expensive that few would take it.
Click to expand...
Diminished value should be there for the victim of a bad driver. The bad driver doesn't get it unless he opts for and pays for it ahead of time.

IMO It's a one time payout as second time around gets too complicated.

The diminished value also has an impact on the body shops. Correct me if I'm wrong but if Carfax gets their info from insurance claims some drivers will pay cash to have their car fixed rather than see their car labeled as repaired. They also avoid insurance increases.
 
nobbie48 said:
Diminished value should be there for the victim of a bad driver. The bad driver doesn't get it unless he opts for and pays for it ahead of time.

IMO It's a one time payout as second time around gets too complicated.

The diminished value also has an impact on the body shops. Correct me if I'm wrong but if Carfax gets their info from insurance claims some drivers will pay cash to have their car fixed rather than see their car labeled as repaired. They also avoid insurance increases.
Click to expand...
When my wife's car got rear ended our insurance company wrote it off. The difference in cost to repair and the payout was about $1,000. I asked them to give me the money, let my keep the car and pay the difference out of my own pocket - nope. Instead we had to go shopping for a replacement, and you know how that worked out. A lot more $$$ expense on our part.
Why wouldn't they let me have the car back ? The adjuster said they had a contract with a salvage yard and all write-offs went to them, no exceptions. So they'd dicked us around for a month (storage charges at the auto body shop) and paid for a rental - if they'd just settled with me in the beginning they would have saved a bunch of cash at their end, but that's not how they do things.
Thanks for nothing No Fault.
 
Jay Alexander said:
What specifically is screwing over drivers? If you're not aware, DCPD (direct-compensation property damage - what you refer to as "no fault") will soon be optional. You can opt out if you'd like as of the new year.

Everyone's making great points here, but no mention of FSRA. They are literally the one body that creates/regulates auto insurance in Ontario. The lobby is strong and highly tied to the governments' own interests.

No offense, but the thought of creating a website, to influence large, sweeping regulations is a little short-sighted.



Not quite sure the intent here. Do you mean get reimbursed for the lowered-value of the vehicle, as it's already been in an accident? If so, that's a pretty good point. The problem is, if you keep the vehicle indefinitely, it makes it extremely difficult to gauge what that vehicle will be worth at x point in time.



It already is. SABS will always be second to payout, after OHIP/your personal life/health insurance.



Current rate for standard accident benefits is $400/week, to a maximum of 70% of gross income. I agree, this is extremely low, but you can increase this. It can already be increased up to $1000/week. Beyond that, you'd need separate insurance to cover beyond this amount.

I feel like a problem you have (also others, include myself), is how risk is rated. I agree on the use of better technology to find/penalize uninsured drivers. I also think too many drivers are paying too much for insurance - many people without any history of accidents are still seeing increases to their premiums.

Re-evaluating how risks are rated may be the issue of concern here.
Click to expand...
Jay, you write

Everyone's making great points here, but no mention of FSRA. They are literally the one body that creates/regulates auto insurance in Ontario. The lobby is strong and highly tied to the governments' own interests.

No offense, but the thought of creating a website, to influence large, sweeping regulations is a little short-sighted.

So on one hand you say the government and insurance industry are holding hands but making that more public is short sighted. We need sweeping changes.

Diminished value gets over complicated if there's more than one kick at the cat. If someone buys a previously damaged vehicle they should have paid less for it. They accept getting less for it when it goes to the next owner and there's no more diminished value. The vehicle isn't virgin tin.

Has it changed for physio?

It used to be an injured person had to use any employee benefits first before the insurance company coughed up. That meant that the employee who paid for the benefits (Taxable benefit) had to subsidize the bad driver. If after the auto injury was dealt with and physio over, the injured party threw their back out gardening they would have to pay for physio. They bought into the company plan to protect themselves but the bad driver got the benefit.

You admit the number is extremely low.

Current rate for standard accident benefits is $400/week, to a maximum of 70% of gross income. I agree, this is extremely low, but you can increase this. It can already be increased up to $1000/week. Beyond that, you'd need separate insurance to cover beyond this amount.

You mention the numbers can be increased but you fail to mention who picks up the tab. Again why not the bad driver?

I was self employed for 30 years and didn't have disability insurance. Instead I worked safely as I would be on the hook if I got injured. If I got injured by someone else why shouldn't they pay?

Same for a car crash.

We agree on the following:

I feel like a problem you have (also others, include myself), is how risk is rated. I agree on the use of better technology to find/penalize uninsured drivers. I also think too many drivers are paying too much for insurance - many people without any history of accidents are still seeing increases to their premiums.

I have elsewhere mentioned the effectiveness of Roman decimation. Few would mutiny or desert a second time because executing one in ten means you are no further in the line up than five away from the guy that dies.

If more bad drivers were "Decimated financially" their friends, family, neighbours and associates might take the situations more seriously. Insurance as we know it clouds the issues.

Insurance is very complex. No one in the industry wants to answer hypothetical questions because hypothetical situations are based on conjecture not facts.
 
TK4 said:
When my wife's car got rear ended our insurance company wrote it off. The difference in cost to repair and the payout was about $1,000. I asked them to give me the money, let my keep the car and pay the difference out of my own pocket - nope. Instead we had to go shopping for a replacement, and you know how that worked out. A lot more $$$ expense on our part.
Why wouldn't they let me have the car back ? The adjuster said they had a contract with a salvage yard and all write-offs went to them, no exceptions. So they'd dicked us around for a month (storage charges at the auto body shop) and paid for a rental - if they'd just settled with me in the beginning they would have saved a bunch of cash at their end, but that's not how they do things.
Thanks for nothing No Fault.
Click to expand...
It sounds like a yard bid on a contract based on a formula and fingers crossed.

My wife caved in the sliding door of her Chev Uplander and the body shop wanted about $2K to fix it. I shopped around for a same colour replacement and did it myself for $500. I'm guessing the wrecker didn't pay $500 for the donor wreck.

TBH auto wrecking is tougher now with decommissioning costs, legislation, ground pollution controls etc.
 
nobbie48 said:
Jay, you write

Everyone's making great points here, but no mention of FSRA. They are literally the one body that creates/regulates auto insurance in Ontario. The lobby is strong and highly tied to the governments' own interests.

No offense, but the thought of creating a website, to influence large, sweeping regulations is a little short-sighted.

So on one hand you say the government and insurance industry are holding hands but making that more public is short sighted. We need sweeping changes.

Diminished value gets over complicated if there's more than one kick at the cat. If someone buys a previously damaged vehicle they should have paid less for it. They accept getting less for it when it goes to the next owner and there's no more diminished value. The vehicle isn't virgin tin.

Has it changed for physio?

It used to be an injured person had to use any employee benefits first before the insurance company coughed up. That meant that the employee who paid for the benefits (Taxable benefit) had to subsidize the bad driver. If after the auto injury was dealt with and physio over, the injured party threw their back out gardening they would have to pay for physio. They bought into the company plan to protect themselves but the bad driver got the benefit.

You admit the number is extremely low.

Current rate for standard accident benefits is $400/week, to a maximum of 70% of gross income. I agree, this is extremely low, but you can increase this. It can already be increased up to $1000/week. Beyond that, you'd need separate insurance to cover beyond this amount.

You mention the numbers can be increased but you fail to mention who picks up the tab. Again why not the bad driver?

I was self employed for 30 years and didn't have disability insurance. Instead I worked safely as I would be on the hook if I got injured. If I got injured by someone else why shouldn't they pay?

Same for a car crash.

We agree on the following:

I feel like a problem you have (also others, include myself), is how risk is rated. I agree on the use of better technology to find/penalize uninsured drivers. I also think too many drivers are paying too much for insurance - many people without any history of accidents are still seeing increases to their premiums.

I have elsewhere mentioned the effectiveness of Roman decimation. Few would mutiny or desert a second time because executing one in ten means you are no further in the line up than five away from the guy that dies.

If more bad drivers were "Decimated financially" their friends, family, neighbours and associates might take the situations more seriously. Insurance as we know it clouds the issues.

Insurance is very complex. No one in the industry wants to answer hypothetical questions because hypothetical situations are based on conjecture not facts.
Click to expand...


Not disagreeing, it just feels like yelling into the clouds, but I'm cynical.

All these changes suggested would end up costing more, unless rating of risk changes. At the end, the concept of insurance is the big community pot we all pay, and the few take from. Due to this concept, and the current implementation, we're all feeling the effects of our neighbours' claims.
 
Jay Alexander said:
Not disagreeing, it just feels like yelling into the clouds, but I'm cynical.

All these changes suggested would end up costing more, unless rating of risk changes. At the end, the concept of insurance is the big community pot we all pay, and the few take from. Due to this concept, and the current implementation, we're all feeling the effects of our neighbours' claims.
Click to expand...
It might surprise you but massive rapid change scares me as much as no change. How about some baby steps like decent income replacement. The minimum wage equivalent prevents the victim from being able to afford a fight. Not only has he been injured but his ability to fight back has been taken away.

Diminished value can be compensated for by driving the car an extra year or two.

Unfortunately the insurance business has become totally adversarial. John Doe feels he is being ripped off on rates and cheats when he can. The insurer know that somewhere they're being ripped off so bumps up the rates.

My wife worked in insurance for decades and the inefficiency was rampant. There is room for improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom