News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

i was paying 156 monthly for 2007 mazda 3 sedan. My renewal is 215! Ontario offer to regulate the system so that people dont milk it for claims.

That's not too bad. I drive a 2002 Acura RSX and my policy started at approximately $200 one year ago, went up to $208 6 months ago, and in july went up to $222. I'm with State Farm, and that's with a multi-vehicle discount (mom's car, dad's car, sister's car). I'm 27 and have my G2. I really should get my G lol.
 
Insurance Rates

Ok. A primer on insurance policies. (for the lawyers among us, LOL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, not to be taken as professional advice)

How are 'raw' costs determined?

Obviously other than profit margin, costs are assessed by probable pay out or in other words, total liability.

In the U.S., it is legal to carry as little as $200,000 in liability coverage. This is the key sum.

Its the one that pays if you kill the other driver/passengers etc.

In Ontario, is the LAW that you carry $500,000, but you will not find an insurance company willing to insure you with less than $1,000,000 in liability.

That accounts for a big chunk of the cost difference.

Liability in Ontario means any medical expense, but also any non-medical expense incurred as a result of your accident, and that you have to pay for lost income and caregivers and so on.

Never mind "pain and suffering* awards.

Within the rate calculation; there are certain assumptions.

You will notice numbers on your policy.

I believe its veh, Coll, Comp.

This means the likelihood of someone driving your type of car x the average amount of damage in an accident (coll) or a theft/vandalism (comp)

Then you add in a factor for driving ability.

Embedded in those costs are the fact that if you car is stolen/vandalized there is usually no one to sue.

And if you get into an accident with a drive w/no insurance, there is effectively no one to sue ( you can't claim assets that aren't there), but your insurance will still look after you, even if the other guy was at fault.

Also, the way Ontario insurance works, the other's guy insurance only pays for liability claims (even if he's at fault) your insurance company is always responsible for any damage to your vehicle.

That has the effect of driving down bad driver rates, and driving up good driver rates.


****

Now a secondary factor to consider is that all insurance companies take your money (premium) and invest it, in stocks, real estate etc.

Generally speaking, during good times, your insurer's let rates stay flat or even cut them marginally, because the stock market and real estate prices are rising giving them free money.

When the markets go south however, the not only don't get 'free money' they show a loss; and they're potentially showing insolvency if the losses are bad enough; so premiums must rise.

****

Finally, in Ontario we do have a one particular bad driver penalty.

It is illegal in Ontario for the Insurance companies not to offer you insurance, not matter how badly you drive, if you are a legal driver.

If you have 3 at fault accidents, and 10 tickets, but you have a valid license, they must insure you.

This is done under a system called 'facility' in which the major insurers in Ontario all pay in and jointly administer and eat the losses for this type of policy.

The premiums are much steeper and are meant to discourage certain people from getting insurance (or driving);but typically 4k - 10 k per year.

But a number of drivers do accept the policies and invariably any cost overruns for facility insurance are born by good drivers.

********

Whew. Done Babbling. :D
 
Also, the way Ontario insurance works, the other's guy insurance only pays for liability claims (even if he's at fault) your insurance company is always responsible for any damage to your vehicle.

That has the effect of driving down bad driver rates, and driving up good driver rates. :D

Great sumation Northern Light very balanced and unbiased. I.m wondering if what you mentioned in quote if that was left over from Raes no fault insurance policy ?
 
No Fault

Maggie,

I didn't expand on this point, so I will here.

What Bob Rae's gov't introduced was a form of no-fault insurance, since tinkered with, to give us what we have today.

Today, we have partial no-fault insurance, in that your insurer always pays for damage to YOUR vehicle, REGARDLESS of who caused the accident.

However, in cases of LIABILITY claims, the AT FAULT driver's insurance pays for any personal injury related damages.

There was a sensible rationale for this, sort of....

Under the previous system, Insurance companies would sue each other over small damages to cars, because they were not responsible under their policies to pay those claims, if the other driver was at at fault.

Even in small cases, where legal fees clearly exceeded the damages involved, Insurer's were afraid of setting a precedent by letting something slide, or by paying for something they felt they didn't have to.

This was resulting in endless court time being wasted, and countless legal fees amassed.

The thought was that car damages are a relatively smaller part of the overall cost picture (as opposed to Liability); so why not just have the companies eat their own costs, this should, in theory work out to be a wash, but with big savings in court time and legal fees.

It sorta worked out that way, BUT while this may restrain overall fees charged, it does have the effect of redistributing premium from the bad driver to the good.

Bad drivers, of course, still pay more, just not as much more as they used to; and that money comes from better drivers.

There are also other cost-pressures in the system such as liability limits and various other mandatory coverages.
 
Yes, you ave to wonder why there are so many crappy drivers around too. Perhaps the driving schools need to be tougher so that poor drivers aren't licenced. In the USA you can easily shop around and get free auto insurance quotes and cut your cost just by switching providers. Maybe a two tier system is the way to go.


Lets have the public decide? Lets have a public insurance plan vs a private sector plan?! A two tier system if you will. Since the strike I've heard nothing about how great the private sector is and cost efficient it is, well lets see. When you have a 100 companies with administration costs vs 1 public administration cost ( and of course many other factors). We also subsidize the private sector insurance through high rates because of crappy drivers already. Crappy drivers are everywhere.
 
I lived in Manitoba for awhile, they had provincial insurance..the rates were the best ever, simple
 

Back
Top