|
Car Insurance Rates To Skyrocket (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by MissK
That doesn't really answer my question. I understand how they choose a rate for you, there are many varibles that are particular to each indivudual.
Insurance companies will raise your monthly payments, if you make a claim, even if it is not your fault.
If it isn't your fault, why should your insurance premiums rise? |
Insurance companies CANNOT increase your rates if you have a Non-At Fault Accident in Ontario. |
|
|
| MissK |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Insurance companies CANNOT increase your rates if you have a Non-At Fault Accident in Ontario. |
They did for me, I even had to get a witness to write a report explaining the other person hit me.
My insurance went from $180 to $230.
This was with York Fire Insurance |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by MissK
They did for me, I even had to get a witness to write a report explaining the other person hit me.
My insurance went from $180 to $230.
This was with York Fire Insurance |
I need to know what happened in the accident before I can say how much at fault each party is. By law they cannot increase your rates if you are not at fault so they must have determined you were either partially at fault for the accident or 100% at fault for the accident. |
|
|
| MissK |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I need to know what happened in the accident before I can say how much at fault each party is. By law they cannot increase your rates if you are not at fault so they must have determined you were either partially at fault for the accident or 100% at fault for the accident. |
Bitches. I'm calling them. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by MissK
They did for me, I even had to get a witness to write a report explaining the other person hit me.
My insurance went from $180 to $230.
This was with York Fire Insurance |
Two possible things here... one... there was a split in liability (without knowing the details of the investigation I cannot give an opinion on liability). Did you pay a deductible? If you did then you were deemed at fault (at least in part).
two... your rates went up for non-claims reasons. Rest assured; BY LAW your risk rating cannot be adjusted due to a 0% liability collision in the province of Ontario; subsequently, your rates cannot be altered due to a 0% liability collision in the provice of Ontario. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by mute79
so are you saying that auto insurance premiums would be higher by at least 30% then, if it weren't for government regulation? |
That depends how you define government regulation... if one were to remove FSCO's artificial controls on auto premiums then yes, premiums would rise. If; however, you were to remove the government regulation that controls the Accident Benefits claims process and benefits then premiums would likely decrease (because the cost of claims across the industry would decrease).
The goal for insurers is always a 1:1 combined ratio... the combined ratio is the cost of claims and expenses compared to premium dollars. The goal is to keep claims costs and expenses equal to the primium dollars collected. If the ratio is balanced that means that the product is priced properly and they will attract the risks (clients) that they want. Insurers don't look to premiums to make money, that's what investments are for. If they are losing money on the premiums though then they have to pull money out of their investment account to cover the losses... if they are making money on the premiums then they are pricing themselves too high for their target market and therefore not capturing as much business as they could.... neither of these are a desirable situation, which is why 1:1 is the desired ratio. |
|
|
| MissK |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Two possible things here... one... there was a split in liability (without knowing the details of the investigation I cannot give an opinion on liability). Did you pay a deductible? If you did then you were deemed at fault (at least in part).
two... your rates went up for non-claims reasons. Rest assured; BY LAW your risk rating cannot be adjusted due to a 0% liability collision in the province of Ontario; subsequently, your rates cannot be altered due to a 0% liability collision in the provice of Ontario. |
I'm on it, just called the general claims dept. and they said it was a no-fault claim on my part. Now I'm calling my broker to get to the bottom of this. :) |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MissK
They did for me, I even had to get a witness to write a report explaining the other person hit me. |
That doesn't necessarily guarantee that they didn't place you (partially) at fault, nor does the fact that they say it was a no-fault claim. All claims in Ontario are no-fault; that just means that your own underwriter pays regardless of who is at fault (they can attempt to go after the at-fault party's insurer afterward). You can still be assigned a certain degree of fault, which goes on your record, and that's what causes your rates to go up. In other words, rates go up because you're considered a higher risk, and it has nothing to do with the amount of the claim you made.
When my old car was hit in a parking lot, there were about $2500 in damages. I made a claim, and my rates went down the following year.
Maybe yours made a mistake. Or maybe your rates went up for some totally unrelated reason. What you need to ask them is whether or not you were considered partially liable... them saying that it was a no-fault claim doesn't really tell you anything. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
(they can attempt to go after the at-fault party's insurer afterward). |
In Ontario they CANNOT subrogate against the at fault party insurer....that is part of No-Fault. Part of the reason insurance companies can't subrogate was to keep insurance rates lower. The insurance companies were spending millions recouping money from each other. In the law of large numbers in doesn't make sense to spend all that money when in the long run they were recouping basically the same amount from each other. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The goal for insurers is always a 1:1 combined ratio... the combined ratio is the cost of claims and expenses compared to premium dollars. The goal is to keep claims costs and expenses equal to the primium |
Exactly. Insurance companies will even refund you if they take more premiums in than claims (assuming they are a mutual).
State Farm has refunded premiums to me twice. |
|
|
| musicsnob_NOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
Retract yourself dumb ass, you should be ashamed of yourself saying such idiocies without looking it up first. If you even knew how equalization worked in the first place, you would know that your broke ass isn't paying a dime into it.
|
http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp
Of the 14.2 billion in equalization payments it looks like Quebec is getting over $8 billion(over 50% of the total) this year and Ontario is getting 347 million the first time it has ever received any payment in the history of the program.
Do your own homework. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by musicsnob_NOT
http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp
Of the 14.2 billion in equalization payments it looks like Quebec is getting over $8 billion(over 50% of the total) this year and Ontario is getting 347 million the first time it has ever received any payment in the history of the program.
Do your own homework. |
you are truly a retard, we are talking about car insurances and why it cost less in Quebec (because of the SAAQ and its no-fault system).
The SAAQ is solely funded by the premiums paid by drivers in Quebec. Equalization fund programs such as health and education for example but not SAAQ! Do you understand that?
You chose the wrong guy to argue with. |
|
|
|
|
