Smallc Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 That is for the Atlantic Provinces.....its kind of worse for Manitoba, no ability to sue for pain and suffering. That's the entire point actually. Quote
blueblood Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 Huh? From what i understand (heresay?) I dont think they make more than that. I was emphasizing your point of how much vehicles are insured vs. Population. Lots of farmers have a nice truck, a jalopy truck, one or more dump trucks, semi truck, super b trailer, flat bed goosenecks or semi trailer, cattle trailer, snowmobile trailer, snowmobile, quad, perhaps camper, boat trailer. Its a lot of insurance vs a typical city dweller. Loggers have something like that as well. Since there is a bigger farmer/logger to city person ratio in manitoba than ontario, that helps prove your point. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
guyser Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) I was emphasizing your point of how much vehicles are insured vs. Population. Lots of farmers have a nice truck, a jalopy truck, one or more dump trucks, semi truck, super b trailer, flat bed goosenecks or semi trailer, cattle trailer, snowmobile trailer, snowmobile, quad, perhaps camper, boat trailer. Its a lot of insurance vs a typical city dweller. Farmers pay a lot less here because the useage is restricted by the insurance companies. But that aside, the value of the vehicles is not a main determinant of the end premiums? Yes it is used, but dont forget that the main driver of rates is the Accident Benefits, DCPD portion and the liability of the vehicle. A small 1200lb $500 jalopy can do the same damage as a 2011 Bimmer. A vehicles cost is a static entity. I know how much a car is to replace, so I know in that sense my max payout. Now the driver and resultant injuries is nothing I can foresee.. Edited April 4, 2011 by guyser Quote
Bryan Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 a cap on injuries at $2500 (IIRC) Scurrilously false. I know several people whose MPIC settlements were in excess of $1 million. We do get what we pay for: an insurance that doesn't have a profit motive to deny claims. Quote
BubberMiley Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 If you miss work or are disabled or require physio, you can get paid. But they don't do minor pain and suffering claims anymore. Which is good. It was horribly abused when they did. I knew a guy who was addicted to pain-killers who would step in front of a car whenever he needed money. Not only did he get a new prescription, he got a few thousand dollars. Back in the 80s, I can remember getting almost a thousand bucks for a few scrapes I got while riding my bike when a car turned in front of me. It was a windfall, but I remember thinking that those scrapes were really just part of the risk of going out on the road. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
guyser Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Scurrilously false You are only 6 hours late to the party Scurrilously? Really? I know several people whose MPIC settlements were in excess of $1 million. Not that I doubt you or anything......but I dont personally know any. We do get what we pay for: an insurance that doesn't have a profit motive to deny claims. Ok, i am pleased for you . Quote
guyser Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 If you miss work or are disabled or require physio, you can get paid. But they don't do minor pain and suffering claims anymore. Which is good. It was horribly abused when they did. That is the problem, it was abused here too, thus the reforms implimented in the fall. It still leaves the legit problems of a few people out in the cold, but it was so one sided it had to change. Back in the 80s, I can remember getting almost a thousand bucks for a few scrapes I got while riding my bike when a car turned in front of me. It was a windfall, but I remember thinking that those scrapes were really just part of the risk of going out on the road. a thousand bucks was a bargain for them, thats why they paid up fairly quick I assume? Quote
BubberMiley Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 a thousand bucks was a bargain for them, thats why they paid up fairly quick I assume? Yes. Everyone told me they would have immediately doubled it if I made a face and said "not enough." But I already felt guilty enough. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
guyser Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Yes. Everyone told me they would have immediately doubled it if I made a face and said "not enough." But I already felt guilty enough. Your example is NOT a case of abuse in any way. The amount is well below the threshold concern, and in fact less than an average claim. But the fact that as a cyclist being hit by a driver, you may well have been entitled to $10,000 and likely that adjuster was authorized to go that high. But you received what you needed and no more. Good job. Quote
Tilter Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Auto ensurance is a tax..it is a shifty arrangement between the corporations and their governmental friends. A tax should only be used when the proceeds go into the public purse - not the private purse. This is a pretty idiotic statement---- try having an accident in the States, in a state that doesn't have compulsory insurance and see how taxed (he he) you'd be without resorting to your own policy to pay the damages to your car. Insurance may be too expensive and pay out too little but only a fool would be without it. Quote
guyser Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 This is a pretty idiotic statement---- try having an accident in the States, in a state that doesn't have compulsory insurance and see how taxed (he he) you'd be without resorting to your own policy to pay the damages to your car.. Insurance may be too expensive and pay out too little but only a fool would be without it. New Hampshire and Virginia But they both have funds the oweners must pay into. Quote
Bryan Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 You are only 6 hours late to the party That is funny. I posted almost immediately after you. No idea why it didn't show up until hours later! Quote
guyser Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 That is funny. I posted almost immediately after you. No idea why it didn't show up until hours later! No problems No reply either? Quote
BubberMiley Posted April 6, 2011 Report Posted April 6, 2011 But you received what you needed and no more. Good job. I'm not sure anyone needs to get paid for getting scraped up while engaging in a dangerous activity like cycling in traffic (or driving a car for that matter). It's nice that there's insurance for missing work or for a permanent disability, but a scrape heals by itself. Nonetheless, like most, I have a very hard time saying no to free money. But I'd rather have cheaper premiums than the opportunity to haggle over my owees. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
guyser Posted April 6, 2011 Report Posted April 6, 2011 I'm not sure anyone needs to get paid for getting scraped up while engaging in a dangerous activity like cycling in traffic (or driving a car for that matter). All true. Can you move and be my client....please? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.