Public Auto Insurance Rules!

[Rue]

?!?

I need more information. Do you live in an urban or rural area ? How old are you, and what year/make is the vehicle ?

Taxpayers don't subsidize public insurance. Ratepayers pay for it and they pay less, on average, than private.

I'm a middle-age white guy with a good driving record. I drive a 1999 4Runner. Urban/rural doesn't make a difference in Manitoba.

Yoh Bubba just for your curiousity underwriting was/is based on age, no. of years in Canada, rural/urban, size and type of vehicle, your driving record, gender, but not race or believe it or not your health status not for driving anyways.

As a general rule it should be much cheaper to insure a car in Manitoba even in Winnipeg then compared to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver as the more condened your population gets, and the large your population gets, the more the law of averages says you will get hit or hit someone.

What most certainly effects your rates whether in communist Manitoba or the Republic of Ontario is speeding tickets and no. of claims.

I have been advised by aboriginal people that they have had problems getting car insurance and suspect race issues and I checked one out and I believe the broker was being discriminatory but it had nothing to do with the insurance company just the broker making a negative assumption as to drinking and driving. The guy in question did not drink or for that matter smoke but he was a native. I had him go to a direct insurer.

His rate was then only influenced by the kind of truck he had-which was newer so more expensive to insure.

Hey I hear you guys in Manitoba smash into Moose all the time!!!

[BubberMiley]

Hey I hear you guys in Manitoba smash into Moose all the time!!!

There's a forest right beside a busy expressway in south Winnipeg beside Assiniboine Park. I bet at least 50 deer bite it there every year.

[fellowtraveller]

They defineitely do cherry pick, but I really don't care about high risk drivers having to pay more. Tough luck, drive better.

Have you even read the stories on this thread? Private insurance companies use whatever excuse they can to call someone ' high risk'. Safe drivers who have not caused any accidents are constantly screwed by private insurance companies. You may benefit from the 'system' as it is this month but that could change next month. You are very naive if you think 'driving safe' will protect you from being gouged by private insurance companies.

It did indeed change today, I got renewal notices from my private insurer(Canadian Direct) and the costs have dropped again, now I am, way below what the public insurers in BC and Manitoba would charge. My vehicles stayed about the same, dropped a few dollars because of being one year older.

My wifes dropped about $200 because they are no longer going for full replacement of the vehicle with an identical new one in a writeoff, it is 3 years old now.

Sounds like you're one of those that need to learn to drive better.

But under the private system, high-risk doesn't necessarily even mean you're a poor driver. It just means you fit the wrong demographic profile.

Public insurance in Manitoba confines its generalized distinctions to vehicle type and safe-driving record. So it's more expensive to insure a motorcycle or a sports car than it is to insure a station wagon, because those vehicles carry a higher risk. You also pay more if you have a habit of getting into accidents. But they don't have the gender/age/regional biases that private insurers usually have, which makes for a fairer system. I don't think a 25-year-old city-dweller with a good driving record should necessarily be gouged just because of his demographic profile. Why not include his race as a factor if they're going to make over-generalizations like that?

Over-generalizations?

If you have many tickets or accidents, are you a high or low risk?

If you are convicted of drinking and driving, are you a high or low risk?

If you are an inexperienced driver, are you a high or low risk?

If you drive alot of kilometers in an urban area, are you a high or low risk as compared to a low-miler on a farm?

If you drive a vehicle designed to go very fast, like a motorcycle or sports car - are you a high or low risk?

If you are an experienced driver with a good claims and driving record, are you a high or low risk?

I fit part of these profiles, the ones that make me a generally low risk.

I see absolutely no reason why I should subsidize higher risk groups, they can and should pay more.

[Charles Anthony]

My vehicles stayed about the same, dropped a few dollars because of being one year older.

My wifes dropped about $200 because they are no longer going for full replacement of the vehicle with an identical new one in a writeoff, it is 3 years old now.

Sounds like you're one of those that need to learn to drive better.

Sounds like you have to stop comparing apples and oranges while sitting in a vegetable soup.

What you are saying is that your new insurance is cheaper -- but you are not covered for the same things that you had before!

[fellowtraveller]

Sounds like you have to stop comparing apples and oranges while sitting in a vegetable soup.

What you are saying is that your new insurance is cheaper -- but you are not covered for the same things that you had before!

How one letter changes meaning.

What I meant is that my vehicle, not vehicles, stayed the same except for a slight drop for age. My wifes dropped because of a change in coverage, and an increase in age.

This was in response to the people who claimed that all private insurers are predators just looking for opportunities to jack up prices. Well, mine just had the opportunity, and did not.

[Riverwind]

I see absolutely no reason why I should subsidize higher risk groups, they can and should pay more.

You assume that the system must be 'fair and reasonable' since you benefit from the arbitrary risk categories that exist today. This is a naive and short sighted point of view. You have no control over what insurance companies decide to call risky activities and it is quite possible that you could find that your rates double or triple tomorrow because the companies decide to change those definitions. There was an example in this thread where someone had their rates doubled because they were rear-ended twice. Do you really want to live with a system where your rates could be affected by accidents that you did not cause?

[guyser]

I just had to enrol at this site as I cannot believe the erronious assumptions and frankly the plain old nonsense that is being spewed on this subject.

Double or triple your rates next month, next week...etc etc.

Calling in for a "hypothetical" and rates go up.

$1000 is too much for insurance in Manitoba

1/5th of premiums pays for physical damage on cars

All of the above is false. Patently false .

Here is another complete falsehood......I beleive it is Riverwind but he is not alone

>The private auto insurance industry wastes a lot of money arguing with other insurance companies about who is at fault for any given accident. Publicly run insurance companies don't have this expense and can offer lower premiums as a result.

Insurance companies are also notorious for collusion where they will use the fact that someone has been turned down by another insurance company as an excuse to deny insurance. This means that many people will find themselves denied access to an essential service even if competition theoretically exists

Public auto insurance is more efficient than private auto insurance because it spreads risk across a larger number of people and is not allowed to arbitrarily deny insurance to any but the most extreme cases. This might lead to higher premiums for a minority of lucky drivers but does provide a system where all drivers benefit from a predictable rate structure.

In BC, this predictable rate structure is a huge benefit because anyone who has an accident can quickly calculate whether they would be better off settling without making a claim. In provinces with private insurance having even a minor accident that you don't even claim can lead to huge and unpredictable premium increases. This unpredictability is a huge cost that most people don't take into account until after they have been burned.<

First let me say that Ins Co's have to file their rates and the rules with the govt. They CANNOT deviate from them as the penalties are severe.

If your rates doubled or worse...what are you NOT telling us. Simply put....BS !

Calling in for a hypothetical is bogus too. Now if you call in an at fault claim and then decide to pull it from the Ins Co , well that may hold true and likely.

$1000 is too much for Man, wow...less than $3 a day for a $1m liability , Accident Benefits physical damage etc etc. Sorry dude, suck it up as that is low

1/5th goes to physical damage on cars. You know what..?...you might be right. The insurance co's pay far MORE than that on Accident Benefits. Dont forget that the car is a static payoff. The Ins Co knows exactly what it is worth in the worse case scenario. Now what they dont know is how will you be? Yes yes...they could be paying a million bucks before you are settled.

Arguing with other ins cos wastes the money? Really...and you would know this how? Frankly they all have what is called a fault chart , and your accident falls somewhere on that chart. So if you are car A , and car B hits you , then "fault" is determined from the chart. So no, they do not argue on MOST cases

As for collusion, Pepsi doesnt talk to Coke yet the prices are close. Neither do the Ins Cos. They do not reveal rates until after being filed. Any advantage is used for their benefit.

Public run ins co's? Wow....the govt has never run anything ,well maybe the LCBO, efficiently and insurance is the same. Why would the ONt Govt want to run insurance when they collect plenty of millions in fees payable to OHIP? It is the old cow / milk analogy.

And lastly....someone wrote about insurance being "essential" as in a "right" . Come on now, you are not serious. No one has a right to drive, nor does insurance fall into that either. The only essential the Gov asks is that you carry $200,000 liability. No more no less. You would be a fool to go that low, but hey whatever floats your boat.

Please. do some research on the subject instead of espousing this junk.

Flame suit on.....and I will answer any and all queries.

[Riverwind]

Public run ins co's? Wow....the govt has never run anything ,well maybe the LCBO, efficiently and insurance is the same.

Talk about spewing crap - your opinion has no basis in fact. ICBC is a extremely well run gov't corporation and does a better job that any private insurance co that I dealt with in ont. Many, many people have been screwed by private insurance companies even when they have done nothing to deserve such treatment. The anecdotes on this thread are excellent examples that you chose to ignore - these are real cases where people had their premiums increased as much as 8 times for no good reason.

The only essential the Gov asks is that you carry $200,000 liability. No more no less. You would be a fool to go that low, but hey whatever floats your boat.

Our cities are designed in a way that prevent most people from earning a living without access to a car. It is possible for some people to live close enough to work but it is absurd to suggest that is an option for everyone. That means people have to buy adequate car insurance no matter what the gov't says. This makes car insurance an essential service that should not be denied unreasonably. Private insurance companies have demonstrated over and over that they are willing to abuse their power as providers of an essential service and deny or overcharge customers. That is why publically run insurance companies are better for more people.

[guyser]

Seems that ICBC does run pretty well. But nowhere does that mean that private could not run better. What incentive do the managers et al have to improve the system ? Where is the fiscal responsibility?

Some people have had problems with Ins Co's, as a business it is not virtuous , but to suggest that people have been screwed for nothing, well that is a bit over the top isn't it?

As for the anecdotes listed earlier in this thread , sorry bub....not one of them I recall being plausible. Someone left something out. Yes it is that simple. I did not ignore them, I almost laughed but was concerned enough to chime in. As for increases , everyone got them in 2000-2003 , thats the nature of the beast back then . Some of them went way up. But eight times...?.....nope sorry , didnt happen.

As for essential service, I still maintain , as others do, that it is not an essential service. So "Our cities are designed in a way that prevent most people from earning a living without access to a car". One does not beget the other Sir.

Important ? Perhaps...but not a right nor a neccesity by any stretch. Face it , you want it cheaper so you can drive more. Fine, but to suggest that the Ins Co's need to reign in rates is ridiculous.

And for you, if you want lower rates, lobby the INS Bureau of Canada and your Provincial Govt to stop mandating the ever generous Accident Benefits. Ins Cos sell you what the Gov mandates

[Riverwind]

Seems that ICBC does run pretty well. But nowhere does that mean that private could not run better. What incentive do the managers et al have to improve the system ? Where is the fiscal responsibility?

Public corporations are responsible to the government and the people they serve. This incentive does not work in the same way that a profit incentive works but that does not mean it does not work. The bottom line: the current right wing government came in with a plan to privatize ICBC but realized that the overwhelming majority of BCers prefer it over a system of private insurance.

Some people have had problems with Ins Co's, as a business it is not virtuous , but to suggest that people have been screwed for nothing, well that is a bit over the top isn't it?

You are just demonstrating your naivety and lack of experience. The people relating those anecdotes have no reason to lie or exaggerate. In some cases, the anecdotes were reported by people would would oppose gov't run corporations in any other situation. I have had similar experiences with property insurance companies and there is absolutely no justification for the way I was treated.

As for the anecdotes listed earlier in this thread , sorry bub....not one of them I recall being plausible.

Denial does not make them any less true. Frankly, you are wasting your time if your only counter argument is 'they must be lying because the good little private insurance corporations would never do something like that.'

Important ? Perhaps...but not a right nor a necessity by any stretch. Face it , you want it cheaper so you can drive more. Fine, but to suggest that the Ins Co's need to reign in rates is ridiculous.

It is not about reigning in rates - it is about ensuring that everyone has reasonable access to insurance. It is about giving people predictability so that they know exactly what price they will have to pay when they do have accidents.

[guyser]

I will concur that it seems that ICBC is well run. I recall when I lived there it sure wasn't. Inconvenient beyond belief. But if the BC'ers want it, then fine. Your "bottom line" is noted. But please remember that it could work better if given to the private sector. But you and your provine like it so fine.

"You are just demonstrating your naivety and lack of experience. The people relating those anecdotes have no reason to lie or exaggerate. In some cases, the anecdotes were reported by people would would oppose gov't run corporations in any other situation" (your quote -I should learn how to do this)

Well, sorry about my lack of experience or naivety. I will commence walking around my office and taking down all my accreditations from being an Insurance Broker for the last 20 years. But you did not know that, and I didnt tell . Shame on me , I should have been upfront. I thought it obvious.

People do lie. All the time when they call for a quote on Home/Auto/Commercial/Life. And when they lie and I do not find out until the Ins Co runs a better check , thus resulting in an increased premium, they tend to yell long and loud how they were ripped off. They weren't, they got what was coming to them. People do have "reason to lie or exaggerate" because they think they will get away with it.

If you feel you were treated improperly, then vote with your feet and move your business! Complain to the Ombud of the company. Call the President.

I am not in denial of the anecdotes listed earlier. If there are ten given me, I can guarentee you nine of them can easily be dismissed . Yes, plain and simple. It is not hubris nor anything else that makes me say that, but instead many years dealing with the same thing. There is almost ALWAYS something left out. I can only recall a couple of times where the company had the wrong info on someone and the wrong premium was being charged. And trust me, if I am in your court and can prove to an Ins Co that they are wrong, I am the proverbial dog on a bone until satisfied.

"It is not about reigning in rates - it is about ensuring that everyone has reasonable access to insurance. It is about giving people predictability so that they know exactly what price they will have to pay when they do have accidents"

Perhaps you need a course studying Actuarial science. I know I do, but I understand how it works. No one can predict what will the future hold. So Actuaries come up with their reasonings based on math and probablities and this corresponds to the rate you are charged. Rates went up when 9-11 hit . Who could have foreseen that?

Everyone has access to insurance. Every single person in my province. Most provinces have the same basic law. There is not a person I have talked to in 20 years that cannot get insurance. NOT A SINGLE ONE. So your arguement about access is merely a cover for reigning in the rates.

Tell me who does not have access?

If you have 5 speeding tickets , 3 at fault accidents in the past 2 years, you ran over a little kid and you also have 3 DUI's......I can get you insurance in 5 minutes. So anything you come back with cannot be as bad as my hypothetical above.

So who doesnt have access?

[jdobbin]

Well, sorry about my lack of experience or naivety. I will commence walking around my office and taking down all my accreditations from being an Insurance Broker for the last 20 years. But you did not know that, and I didnt tell . Shame on me , I should have been upfront. I thought it obvious.

The growing anger at private car insurance has reached an explosive level. Is it all misplaced?

[guyser]

The growing anger at private car insurance has reached an explosive level. Is it all misplaced?

There is not in my estimation any "growing anger" in Ontario with respect to insurance. Now if you asked me 4-5 years ago I would most certainly agree. Pissed.....?...more than that. But for now with three years of stable rates and in fact lower rates than back in 2002-2003 I do not see any anger.

But what really is at the root of the problem is Ins Co and brokers not advising the public in an informative way. I saw that the Ins Cos tried, but the public seemed unwilling to listen. That still remains our fault though. We can and are our own worst enemy.

People saw rising rates in auto ins and never stopped to ask why. Those that did may not have liked it much but they at least had reasoning as to why the rates went through the roof.

Let me try and explain succinctly. This can be boring stuff ya know .....this pertains to post 9-11 rates.

Every auto Ins Co buys what is called "Re-Insurance" . (referred to as Re ) Now Re is used to underwrite the full exposure of a companies risks...ie all the cars on auto policies, the drivers, the kids etc.

They do this so that, lets say ING, doesn't go broke in the case of a catastrophe. So in the event of a catastrophe this Re gets invoked and used to pay the claims of policy holders.

Now Re is a world market. A very huge market.

9-11 cost the Re's billions and billions. The main Ins Co who held the policy for the WTC towers and the planes could only underwrite if they bought from the Re market.

But the Re market includes small and large auto insurance co's ( and property ones too) So when it came time to renew the Re policy, the rates skyrocketted as they had taken such a hit. Thus the average, well pretty much everyones , rates to rise.

[jdobbin]

There is not in my estimation any "growing anger" in Ontario with respect to insurance. Now if you asked me 4-5 years ago I would most certainly agree. Pissed.....?...more than that. But for now with three years of stable rates and in fact lower rates than back in 2002-2003 I do not see any anger.

I have no idea about Ontario but the Maritimes are still having an issue over large increases in insurance.

The reason why so many western provinces went with public insurance is the history of private car insurance in those provinces. It got to the point that people were not reporting accidents or running from the scene in growing numbers. Also, the cost of going to court every single time there was an injury made people extremely angry.

[guyser]

jdobbin, you do bring up a good point about the Maritimes. I have read about the problems that continue down east. I cannot really tell you why they are having problems there. From what I can gather it seems to be too much meddling by the govt of the day. Too many changes to implement, not allowing enough premium increases to offset losses etc.

If they would allow the companies to actually raise the rates, like they did in Ontario, then the populace would soon find out who is competitve and hungry for business. In the short term, well it sucks for the drivers. In the long term the companies who are budget conscious will thrive, growing larger customer bases, and seeing the return of stable rates . Too many in a mraketplace directly controlled by an appeasement govt will lead to problems.

I recall reading of the acute problems down east and some of that also had to do with pop density. It is a large area with a small pop base. This comes at a price. Should ING have an adjuster in every town? A broker in every town or comapny rep. Hard to do without the base to supply the funds to do just that.

Your post did remind me of another very important post from earlier.

In the post in question, someone wrote, and I am paraphrasing here, that Ins Co's had record profits while sticking it to the common man. How can they do that?

This one was easy to figure out....although it took us a longtime to do so.

What happened is that in 2001 onward, auto rates went thru the roof. So people keeled over when they got the renewal. No surprise there.

Well the same person has a minor fender bender with total damage of $1500. They had a feeling if they reported this "at fault" accident then the rates for the next 5 years go up. So they paid it themselves. The same thing happened with glass claims. People would not report that they had a busted windshield.

So the Actuaries had the right numbers but NO ONE could forsee the public not reporting these claims. Thus no claim...no payout....no payout so the money stays in the profit line of the yearend report.

And with that, Ins Co's reported record profits. And frankly that sucked for the consumer but was not entirely wrong on either end. What was wrong was that reporting a "not at fault" claim, which many of these were, would not have resulted in any increase. Again, the Ins Cos and brokers let the consumer down.

[jdobbin]

Well the same person has a minor fender bender with total damage of $1500. They had a feeling if they reported this "at fault" accident then the rates for the next 5 years go up. So they paid it themselves. The same thing happened with glass claims. People would not report that they had a busted windshield.

So the Actuaries had the right numbers but NO ONE could forsee the public not reporting these claims. Thus no claim...no payout....no payout so the money stays in the profit line of the yearend report.

And with that, Ins Co's reported record profits. And frankly that sucked for the consumer but was not entirely wrong on either end. What was wrong was that reporting a "not at fault" claim, which many of these were, would not have resulted in any increase. Again, the Ins Cos and brokers let the consumer down.

Things may settle down in the Maritimes but I don't think the public there will take any more let downs, if you know what I mean.

[guyser]

Things may settle down in the Maritimes but I don't think the public there will take any more let downs, if you know what I mean.

And I agree.

But it will be political suicide should any party decide to implement Govt run. What happens when the results are even worse for the Govt Auto Ins Co?

They wont do it as they know they will b killed should they not get a handle on the rates. Also , since the Govt dictates the Accident Benefits and other SABS rates, this would result in the left hand yelling at the right.

I will never understand the truth why things that work elsewhere dont work in the Maritimes. But then again, I live in Toronto .

[jdobbin]

And I agree.

But it will be political suicide should any party decide to implement Govt run. What happens when the results are even worse for the Govt Auto Ins Co?

They wont do it as they know they will b killed should they not get a handle on the rates. Also , since the Govt dictates the Accident Benefits and other SABS rates, this would result in the left hand yelling at the right.

I will never understand the truth why things that work elsewhere dont work in the Maritimes. But then again, I live in Toronto .

So you think public insurance in other provinces is more expensive and poorer in coverage than provinces with private insurance?

[guyser]

So you think public insurance in other provinces is more expensive and poorer in coverage than provinces with private insurance?

That is a hard question for me to answer. I am certainly biased.

I never like having the option of another company taken from me. ICBC....that it. Sask General ( not sure of name) is the same. If you are wronged, how can you correct it? Everyone you will talk to has a vested interest in the status quo.

I dont like that I HAVE TO pay Rogers for my cable. My best friend is a VP there, and I hassle him all the time that this sucks. And the only reason I do not get irate is that I am lucky enough to know him and thus I can get things done that someone else will pull their hair out over. It is the same if your uncle is the best surgeon in the land. You will get in first and be well taken care of, but perhaps I will have a month or two wait.

Back to insurance. There is no one working as an advocate for you in govt run ins. As a broker I can get things straitened out pretty quick. Sometime mistakes are as simple as the underwriter hit the wrong button.Sometimes I have to jump in the help solve a claim dispute. I am on your side in thiese cases. I will go to bat for you if justified.

With Govt ins.....that is not the case. Even in BC where the broker is alive, he only has one market to wriet auto, so how good is he really for advocating your point? He wants to know he will still have that contract.

So I guess.....no, I do think it is more expensive and poore run.

[theloniusfleabag]

Here is a bit of info...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insurance/

What a difference a couple of years makes. In 2003, consumers vented their anger as the premiums they paid to insure their homes and cars registered double-digit increases for the third year in a row. And that's if no claims had been made on their policies...

... in some instances insurance companies are refusing to renew policies of customers who file one or more claims. "If you do have a lot of claims…if you use your insurance policy as a maintenance program, your [insurance will be cancelled]."

Those record profits of 2003 were about to be eclipsed. Big-time. Feb. 18, 2005 – the Insurance Bureau of Canada reports that the industry is healthy again. Healthy to the tune of record profits of $4.2 billion.

or...

http://www.autonet.ca/Insurance/story.cfm?...493226-sun.html

[guyser]

Here is a bit of info...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insurance/

What a difference a couple of years makes. In 2003, consumers vented their anger as the premiums they paid to insure their homes and cars registered double-digit increases for the third year in a row. And that's if no claims had been made on their policies...

... in some instances insurance companies are refusing to renew policies of customers who file one or more claims. "If you do have a lot of claims…if you use your insurance policy as a maintenance program, your [insurance will be cancelled]."

Those record profits of 2003 were about to be eclipsed. Big-time. Feb. 18, 2005 – the Insurance Bureau of Canada reports that the industry is healthy again. Healthy to the tune of record profits of $4.2 billion.

or...

http://www.autonet.ca/Insurance/story.cfm?...493226-sun.html

And thank you for that theloniousfleabag. But what is your point?

Does any of those limks change what I said? I do not think so.

[Technocrat]

Here is a bit of info...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insurance/

What a difference a couple of years makes. In 2003, consumers vented their anger as the premiums they paid to insure their homes and cars registered double-digit increases for the third year in a row. And that's if no claims had been made on their policies...

... in some instances insurance companies are refusing to renew policies of customers who file one or more claims. "If you do have a lot of claims…if you use your insurance policy as a maintenance program, your [insurance will be cancelled]."

Those record profits of 2003 were about to be eclipsed. Big-time. Feb. 18, 2005 – the Insurance Bureau of Canada reports that the industry is healthy again. Healthy to the tune of record profits of $4.2 billion.

or...

http://www.autonet.ca/Insurance/story.cfm?...493226-sun.html

And thank you for that theloniousfleabag. But what is your point?

Does any of those limks change what I said? I do not think so.

I think what he is trying to say that even with a govn't run system run inefficiently they probably wouldn't be 4.2 billion$ inefficient.

Thats a hellavalot of profit... i think i may cite that next time i talk to my insurance company...

[guyser]

That is a heck of a lot of money.You are right.

But , that said , there are more than 120 auto ins co's in Ontario alone. So add up all the P&C, Auto, Life etc companies in Canada and divide that into $4.2B and that number seems more reasonable.

On the good side, these companies have to be solvent , investing wisely in order to pay cat claims that come. Not all of cat6 claims can be covered by Re-insurance carriers.

But some of this goes back to my post explaining why some people are not making claims when in fact they are ok to do so. The prfits this generates cannot be accounted for.

[madmax]

I have private insurance.

I have my 4 year old car completely insured for collision etc and my house too - full coverage. I pay $1100 per year. Tell me again why you like government insurance?

Well, I don't know where you live but you have one heck of a deal. In Ontario, Private Auto, in an urban setting, it is pretty common to see $2500 to $4000 for a clean record or more. Yes there is less, I just paid $574 for 6 months, with a 24 year old truck, with no collision and a perfect driving record for over 20 years. No tickets in this period.

I hate insurance companies. They cry poor. It is so bad that the banks are getting into the action. It is so bad that no agents have lost their homes, their businesses, or their clients. It is so bad that there is very little competition from MANY underwriters, and they continously upsize to larger and larger buildings. Yup, they complain, about collision, fraud, theft, and all the problems they insure, they complain all the way to the bank, opps, then they complain about those banks cutting into their awful problems:-).

Yup its tough.

I'll take public auto insurance in a heartbeat. The sooner the better.

[guyser]

I have private insurance.

I have my 4 year old car completely insured for collision etc and my house too - full coverage. I pay $1100 per year. Tell me again why you like government insurance?

Well, I don't know where you live but you have one heck of a deal. In Ontario, Private Auto, in an urban setting, it is pretty common to see $2500 to $4000 for a clean record or more. Yes there is less, I just paid $574 for 6 months, with a 24 year old truck, with no collision and a perfect driving record for over 20 years. No tickets in this period.

I hate insurance companies. They cry poor. It is so bad that the banks are getting into the action. It is so bad that no agents have lost their homes, their businesses, or their clients. It is so bad that there is very little competition from MANY underwriters, and they continously upsize to larger and larger buildings. Yup, they complain, about collision, fraud, theft, and all the problems they insure, they complain all the way to the bank, opps, then they complain about those banks cutting into their awful problems:-).

Yup its tough.

I'll take public auto insurance in a heartbeat. The sooner the better.

Maybe you need to brush up on the understanding of insurance.

No competition from many underwriters ?. Since underwriters have NO SAY in what the rates are (for auto ins) I am not sure of your post.

Upsize to larger and larger buildings. Well, since that is investment money and the have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits , why not buy a larger bldg that may return more money to shareholders.

But as I said much earlier, a lot of the blame should be on us in the industry. We have done a lousy job in educating the public.

You guys would be astounded to see what the costs of collisions, thefts etc are.

The next time you come across an accident, say one car runs a red and hits a third party , no loss of life, no serious injuries requiring hospital treatment, try and find out why this claim will likely climb to $30,000 to $40,000 before all is settled.

Mindboggling is what it is. Lawsuits , there is another.

Get sued on your homeowners policy? Go to court and you win means the ins co lawyers defending you were succesful . Great, but that cost the ins co somewhere above $20,000. (maybe fta lawyer can add) So, you recd $20,000 of protection for the cost of a homeowners policy that cost you maybe $600.

Good bargain I say.

As for 2500 - 4000 for one car in an urban setting....umm ....sorry bub. Not likely, not even based in reality IF based on , no tickets, prior record, no accidents, no driving to work.

Maybe you are thinking commercial insurance.

Either way, hope for govt run insurance......it wi9ll never happen in Ont. The govt doesn't want to get into it as they make money now from ins co.

You would change your turn in time.