|
Do tell, is this a bit ridiculous or am I crazy? (INSURANCE FUN)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VERTiG0 |
My parents recently renewed the insurance on their vehicles, and I'm insured with the same company.
The insurance company had me sign a goddamned waiver saying that I would not drive my mother's car, a Ford Mustang (piece of V6, but it's 5-spd at least).
I thought that was a bit over the top, but is this common practice? Also, automotive insurance. Why is an '03 Mazda MX5 cheaper than my '88 New Yorker beater? |
|
|
| all-nite-freak |
| because you are most likely under 25,not married,no kids, live at home, and male.That and your salary can have effects on your premiums. |
|
|
| preppie chick |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
The insurance company had me sign a goddamned waiver saying that I would not drive my mother's car, a Ford Mustang (piece of V6, but it's 5-spd at least).
|
Same thing happened to my brother...
insurance companies are REALLY.
and no you're not crazy, and yes it is ridiculous! |
|
|
| Irishaddict |
Well, I'm insured on my dad's truck but he politely informed me that the only way I would ever be behind the wheel of it would be to drive his dead body to a funeral home or get his wine collection out of our burning house.
Just sounds like paperwork to cover their ass. |
|
|
| Euphorica |
| that is the gheyest thing ive ever heard...unless you have a bad record... |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
My parents recently renewed the insurance on their vehicles, and I'm insured with the same company.
The insurance company had me sign a goddamned waiver saying that I would not drive my mother's car, a Ford Mustang (piece of V6, but it's 5-spd at least).
I thought that was a bit over the top, but is this common practice? Also, automotive insurance. Why is an '03 Mazda MX5 cheaper than my '88 New Yorker beater? |
It's not rediculous and you're not crazy, you simply don't understand insurance.
Debate as you will the merits, or lack thereof, of the Ford Mustang but understand that statistically vehicles of it's ilk are more often involved in serious collisions due to speed or lack of driver attention then are other vehicles. This is compounded when you add a young, single, male driver who lives with his parents to the mix. Your demographic (note, insurance is based on large numbers not individuals in keeping with the founding principle of insurance "to spread the risk of the few amongst the many") is far more likely to be involved in serious at fault collisions then is any other. This risk becomes greater when driving a vehicle such as your mother's. In order to cover the risk of you driving your mother's vehicle her insurer would need to charge a substantially increased premium.
To prevent this increased premium your broker, or your mother, has recommended that you be excluded from coverage on this vehicle. This means that the insurance company does not owe you a defence from liability or your mother indemnification from physical damage if you are driving the automobile. The exclusion removes the risk you pose to the insurer. As a result, they do not need to charge an increased premium to cover the risk.
The waiver is necessary because the Ontario Automobile Owner's Policy (OAP1) is writen in such a way that any (licensed and qualified) driver of the vehicle is covered unless explicitly excluded. Years ago the insurer would have simply placed an endorsement on the policy excluding you as a driver. Unfortunately, the courts have since ruled that unless the insurer can prove the excluded driver "knew or ought to have known" that they were an excluded driver the endorsement is not enforcable. The easiest way for the insurer to prove this is to have you sign off on a waiver that acknowledges you are excluded from coverage under the policy.
This is not an uncommon practice at all, in fact, it is frequently employed.
As for the Mazda vs. the New Yorker question, I need more details to give an accurate answer. There could be a number of reasons.... age of driver, sex of driver, marital status, driver history, LPN (list price new), residence of driver, use of vehicle, average KM/year, coverage, optional endorsents, insurer's rate schedule (as controled by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario), etc.
I know it's a lot to read but I hope it helps clear things up a bit. |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| I'm so glad that I don't have to worry about insurance right now b/c my family has company cars. The horror stories I hear of insurance companies make me nervous to get a car of my own. They sound super gay. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
I thought that was a bit over the top, but is this common practice? |
Yes it is common practice. They are covering their ass as much to let you state that you know you're not insured on it.
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Why is an '03 Mazda MX5 cheaper than my '88 New Yorker beater? |
Probably: Cost to rebuild MX5 < cost to rebuild New Yorker (or damage done by MX5 < damage done by New Yorker). |
|
|
| Sweeper |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Probably: Cost to rebuild MX5 < cost to rebuild New Yorker (or damage done by MX5 < damage done by New Yorker). |
Not to mention that the mx5 is probably much safer, and the chance of serious injury if a collision is much less. I thought I was gonna have to bring my Insurance expertise here but some 1 wrote a pretty good long reply lol, Ive been working in insurance 3 years and managing an Insurance brokerage for about half a year. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Probably: Cost to rebuild MX5 < cost to rebuild New Yorker (or damage done by MX5 < damage done by New Yorker). |
True enough, I suppose. New old stock from a dealership sure as hell isn't cheap. The only real upside to my car is that if I blow the engine or transmission, it's like 9 bucks for both of those parts down at the local scrapyard. |
|
|
| King Luis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Irishaddict
get his wine collection out of our burning house.
|
LOL :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
hahahaha...my dad is the same way. but only diff is i'm a better drive and i drive all the cars at my house. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Probably: Cost to rebuild MX5 < cost to rebuild New Yorker |
this would only matter if there is collision coverage on it. If anyone is carrying collision on an 88 New Yorker they should re-evaluate that decision. Moreover, the insurer knows there is no way in hell they will be repairing an 88 New Yorker.... the Actual Cash Value (ACV) of that vehicle is likely less then $1000, the average claim is more then $1000, subsequently, it stands to reason that the vehicle will be declared a total loss in any collision. |
|
|
|
|
