I decided I was going to get my car appraised now finally so if I did loose it I wouldn't be out all that money and only get book value of like $2000.. I call the insurance company to ask and it turns out acording to state farms policy if my car has an engine in it that wasn't offered in any other vechicle I can't get insurance on it. So I told them I was just thinking about putting that engine in and doing a bunch of work too it.. So looks like I won't be able to get it appriased or anyhting so to hell with it I just called them and got them to take off collision and fire and theft. I have a $1000 deductable so who cares if I would only get the value up to $2000 or whatever stupid amount book value is. So now without collision my insurance is going to be about $200 a month instead of $270... Insurance companys are such a SCAM.

 

Yah they aren't really insurance companies after all -- they are liability companies and that's about it.

I found out the hard way most insurance companies will pay you $$ dIcK $$ for your mods. Watch out if you get it appraised some companies will re-assess your rate according to the appraisal and present you with a new yearly fee. OUCH. Been there and done that.

adious,
RP.

 

You sure you don't want fire and theft on it? At least with no collision, you could possibly part some of the car out if it got in a wreck, and get some $$$ out of it. Same goes for fire. If someone steals your ride, I'd rather have some money in my pocket after than nothing at all.

 

I would have fire and theft before collision.

Karsten: I would strongly suggest shopping around. I would find it hard to believe that no one would insure the car just because it has a different engine in it. It's not like engine swapping is uncommon.

 

Not happy with insurance... find a new company.

Try searching yourself, or go through a broker. You shouldn't take this kind of treatment, you want your car protected and you're willing to pay for it, they should be more than happy to get your business.

Then again, I hate insurance companies in general... they're more worried about covering their liabilities and profit margins than helping people...

 

There are insurance companies out there that covers specialty cars..Fire and theft shouldnt be more than 20 bux a month though

Daz

 

Yeah but what good is fire and theft if they will only give me up to $2000 book value when I have a $1000 detucatble anyways. Not to mention if something did happen they will probably look at the car and say "hey ZZ4 engine no insurance for you" and I will get jack ****. I've been driving this car for three years now without an accident anyways so to hell with it I never really belived in insurance anyways I just want my stupid pink piece of paper that stops me from getting a $5000 fine if I get pulled over.

 

The insurance companies have grown so accustomed to ripping off car owners for the last 30 years that when they get too casual and throw the money around (i.e. HUGE overheads, company 'conferences' in the caribbean and such) and then end up not making millions of dollars in excess (i.e. non-spent) 'profit' they cry and whine and raise rates. I believe State Farm in particular messed up nicely in the last year- I couldn't even get them to quote me last month- they just didn't want the business, period.

Auto insurance has become a scam for the most part- unfortunately we must have liability to be legally on the road (provincial law). Notice, however, that the provincial minimum is $200,000.00 liability (reason for this is that the law states that $100,000.00 damage and $100,000.00 punitive damage is the maximum a court can award in a traffic case- i.e. maximum award is $200,000.00 so the only conceivable way you would require more is if you ran over 20 school kids sitting at a curb)- how many insurance companies (or their brokers/agents) will sell you less than $1 million liability? None I've found in the last few years.

Also- what vehicle you drive/color/etc. is all extraneous BS to give them further excuse to overcharge you. If you pick a low-theft, off color vehicle- you still won't pay significantly less for insurance. As an example- last quote I got comparing full coverage for a brand-new $45,000.00 BMW vs. a 20-year-old Monte Carlo (book value about $2000.00) was about $200.00 a year ($200 more per year for the BMW). Virtually everything is used as an 'excuse' to justify why your rate is high, going up, or will go up- but when compared to another vehicle not meeting the same 'higher rate' additions, the price varies very very little.

The fact that rates are now skyrocketing and some companies (i.e. State Farm) don't seem to want any new business is not a business reality (as they have been making out recently)- but a 'lesson' for consumers to learn. The 'lesson' is: "we are a government-approved rip-off industry, and we have been ripping off the consumer for the last 20 years and unfortunately you were starting to figure this out (again)- SO- we're going to stick it to you for awhile and refuse new business as 'proof' we have genuine problems- SO that in the next couple of years when we've doubled insurance premiums for everyone- you really won't be sure if we actually have problems or are still ripping you off and won't argue/critisize/re-regulate us." I.e. it's a 'loss leader' training program for the insurance industry to justify current and future, larger ripoffs.

Roughly every 10 years or so, Ontario consumers get PO'd at the insurance company's and their scams and start to get uppity. Normally the provincial government gives them an excuse to raise rates (i.e. new legislation covering auto insurance)- but apparently the discontent is too high right now and the government hasn't ponied up any new excuse legislation for them yet- so they're pushing with this new line of BS.

Sounds awfully conspiratorial I know- but unfortunately, it is, for the most part an accurate assessment.

 

Eric:

What's your source for the $100K cap on punitives - I'd like to follow that up.

Also, I take it you've seen the SCC decision in Whiten v. Pilot. Not an MVA I know but it changes the playing field with respect to bad faith actions generally and the use of same as an inducement to settle in MVAs where the Ins'r has maximum exposure.

 

The thing that pisses me off is they use any little reason or excuse to jack up your rates... Im sure you all heard about the university of torontos study a few months ago about the speed limit should be bumped up to 120-130 on 400 series highways. Of course the cops say that people would still just speed 20 over (which is total BS, because most people feel comfortable at 120 so they drive at it, and if the speed limit was 130 they probly wouldnt go over it more than a few km but thats a whole other topic). So anyway Ive got 2 tickets so far, neither with any demerit points or speed taken down, both on sunny days, both on the 416 (same as the 401 for you toronto folks except its newer/smoother). I dont see how that makes me a high risk driver... I could easily be doing 160 and be within my comfort zone (I wouldnt cruize at that if the limit was higher though for mileage reasons alone). But I guess it makes me high risk driver because provincial government doesnt feel like doing what all the other areas are starting to do.
The funny thing is, if the government listens to the opp they will obviously say keep it at 100 because they make a huuuuge revenue of it for the cost of giving tickets. And dont think insurance companies wouldnt have a say in it because its been proven they fund speedtraps and what not (whether they buy the radar guns or timbits, no one knows). Anyways thats my rantable 2 cents.

 

For info on insurance laws/restrictions look at the Ontario Compulsary Automobile Insurance Act (available from Publications Ontario- I had some photocopies out of it but seem to have misplaced them at the moment). It was the Bob Rae government that brought in these payment caps along with 'no fault'.

The concept partially being that in the case of one vehicle hitting another and then another and then another (i.e. like a highway pileup)- the second driver, i.e. the 'hittor' was, from a police perspective (not insurance)- 'at fault' and so-on down the line. By insurance extension- first car would be 'fault free' and every other car would be 'at fault' for the damages to the vehicle in front (i.e. they were not in control of their vehicle by hitting the vehicle in front). This is why the insurance companies have since ignored police charges/findings unless it gives them grounds to jack your rate- and then decide amongst themselves who (i.e. which insurance company) will pay what share. Basically- 'no fault' is an utter failure because the insurance companies don't give a damn and do what they want- they are not legally bound by the term 'no fault' in any respect to claims settlement or premium prices. As such, they use it as an excuse when you have a claim for which you were not charged by the police "no fault- sorry dude, everyone pays if they have a claim"-or a variation of such to make it sound more palatable. If you were charged- "well obviously you were at fault- you got a ticket- so we're going to nail you to the wall on premiums". If indeed there was 'no fault' then premiums would only rise and fall based upon the overall insurers losses/profits and individual drivers previous claims would be irrelevant in determining their premium- this is NOT the case right now.

The 'caps' CAN be ('can' not 'are') ignored by the courts when only a single vehicle is involved in an accident that injures people or damages property where another form of insurance (i.e. house insurance) would not be reasonably expected to be "in force"-i.e. schoolchildren waiting at a bus stop, for example. In respect to vehicle-vehicle collisions and those involving 'insured assets'- the caps are generally followed, and when they are not by one court- on appeal 99.99% of them have been returned to the capped limit.

Has there been another SCC decision since the one a few months ago regarding the "deductible" decision? That was criminal and anyone who thought about it knew it (if they kept the wrecked vehicle you still paid a deductible?!?)- but the insurers used it as a 'bonus' payment for having to actually shell out some money on a claim. Fact is, it was unethical to say the least, and by SCC judgement, illegal- no surprise there- many many many of our institutions and corporations ignore laws (insurance, labour, accounting) with impunity until someone calls them on it- the recent spate of public corporation exectives being led off in handcuffs only points out crooked bookkeeping methods which have been used commonly for at least the last 10 years by most large companies.

Banks and insurance companies have been allowed to act any way they like. With the belief it is their ***-given right to f*ck the unwashed masses, and the government's support (or at the very least no objections)- they have been getting away with it for far too long.

Edit: Why does the term "***" get bleeped by the system? For anyone missing the word- it's 'dog' spelled backwards...

 

Its almost at the point where I'm tempted to just say alright f*ck it and get no insurance whatsoever and just pay the fines as I go it would probably end up being cheaper. I'll just keep a reserve of cash on me and when I get pulled over "Yeah yeah officer I know the reutine here are my insurance papers" and just hand over 20 hundred dollar bills : )

 

there are specialty ins companyies that insure modifyed and classic cars based on there appraised value, some magazines have ads for these companyies I think hot rod and car craft has these ads (but dont hold me to that)

 

Dont be surprised If you call some of those classic or hot rod car insurers and find out they wont insure vehicules used as daily drivers or for driving to work and all sorts of other BS...

 

This last Saturday I got pegged doing 120 in a 50 ( !!!! The cops actually LET ME OFF, NO TICKET), and I didn't have an up-to date slip for insurance with me. They saw when they ran my plates that I had insurance, but he told me when he gave my DL back that "If you didn't have insurance, it would have been a $5000 fine." That doesn't sound too nice at all....

 

Compulsory Auto Ins. Act - current to Aug. 31/02 - no reference to payment caps of any type. Lots of stuff about fines though and some churches are exempt from the Act.

I expect that anything from the Rae Gov't has long since been yarded out of there. Although there are still three different versions of no-fault in effect.

I think there are limitations of the type that you refer to but perhaps they exist in case law rather than statute and their application is not restricted to auto accidents only.

For example, the Whiten case that I referred to was a bad faith claim regarding a fire insurance case in which the jury awarded $1 mil for punitive damages because the Ins'r did everything except put a contract out on the claimants in their attempts to get them to drop the claim.

The Ontario Ct. of Appeal knocked the award back to $100K because, if I'm not mistaken, that was supposed to be the going rate for such damages. The SCC then restored the jury award in Jan /02 because the Insurers were such murderous bastards.

 

Where do you guys find this statute stuff? Doing co op with a lawyer or crown attourney (havnt been placed yet) this semester and am interested in this kind of stuff but can never find it.

Azure some b!tch I know got caught doing 140 where it changes to 50 from 80 on her way to school on wednesday cause she was late! She said that the cop was telling her she would loose her license and **** and she started crying and got off with nothing! complete bs... if i cried when i got mine the cop probably wouldve tried to get me with more violations or some BS.
My friend also got caught doing 98 in a 40 zone last year and got off ticket free... Im seriously starting to think you only get speeding tickets from 25-50km over and everything under they ignore, over and its just a warning... Its completly stupid (because Ive never got let off damnit!) but I can see why you would be happy... I would be laughing the second he walked away.

 

Nope....I took my cold sweatted *** back to King St. and continued to follow it, right on the speed limit, all the damn way home....to think, *POOF*, no more liscence.....gah!

 

Aww crap- then those fu#kers have removed it from the Act- last time I saw it in there was around 1996 or so. Actually- our buddy Mike Harris changed auto insurance a few years back- remember the 'premium saving', 'select how much income you want protected' BS? i.e. for every $200 a week in income protection you wanted over the ($400 or was is $600?) minimum- you got to pay an extra 8% annually (i.e. an extra $200 a year for $200 more a week if you couldn't work due to an accident).

Voted for that SOB in 2 elections- and the more I see/find out, the more I feel like a jacka$$ for doing so...

 

Income replacement on the Standard Auto Policy is $400 a week max if you had your accident after Nov. of 96. There's a percentage formula for calculating IRBs so you can end up with less per week depending on what you make per year.

It's probably better to cough the money for the extra coverage above the standard policy although I havn't looked at that yet - may end doing it sometime.

Also, the standard policy is only good for $3mil in accident benefits which isn't all that much if you really do the job on yourself and there's no other driver involved for you to sue.

You can still sue under no-fault but only if your injuries breach the so called tort threshold - ie serious permanant injury. Although scaring has been held to be a serious permanant injury in some cases.

As for websites with this kind of drivel on them - try searching for the Dept. of Justice Ontario - it has Ontario Statutes and Regulations. There is also a site for the Ontario Ct. of Appeal which I think has their cases. The Supreme Court of Canada has a website with their cases as well. If you end up working at law office for your co-op ask them to let you use their Quicklaw research facility.