# The Insurance Scam!



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

How the hell did we ever get ourselves into this situation. Pretty soon we're going to have to insure everything we do, up to and including saying the wrong thing to someone and hurting their feelings I suspect. What really gets me is that we go along our merry way paying for "insurance" so that if something bad happens we'll be covered. Why then should our rates go up if that bad thing happens? isn't that what we're paying for in the first place? Look at this latest piece of shit letter I just received from Allstate;

"_With your insurance renewal right around the corner, we wanted to give you the great news - you've been preapproved to add Ticket Forgiveness to your auto policy! 

Because of your great driving record, you can add Ticket Forgiveness to your auto policy and protect yourself from paying more for insurance in the event you get a minor traffic ticket.* *Ticket Forgiveness covers a variety of minor tickets and only costs $30/year."
*_
So they're only going to charge me $30/year to insure me against them increasing my rates "if" I get a ticket. So now they want me to pay them to insure myself against them. 

*WTF!
*
btw, still waiting to see that 15% reduction Wynnebag promised.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Look on the bright side (if there is one). For $30, you'll be able to drive like a maniac for one year and get all the tickets you want without a price increase.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

So basically, they pre-raise your rates against a possible event that might raise your rates.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Well, you don't have to have home insurance, you can cancel collision on the car and raise the deductible. But, yeah, they're insuring me right out of motorcycling. $1000.00 a year for a 16 year old bike. No tickets, no accidents, no commuting on the bike. $1000.00 for 4 months riding. Every year my premium has gone up.


----------



## Slooky (Feb 3, 2015)

I hate insurance companies


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

JBFairthorne said:


> So basically, they pre-raise your rates against a possible event that might raise your rates.


As opposed to lowering your rates after many years of no claims.

I've always been amused by "Life Insurance". It's not life insurance, it's death insurance, doesn't have quite the same ring to it though, does it? And no thank you, I don't need anymore, fat lot of good it will do me.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I particularly like the "Because of your good driving record..." part. Translated as...you probably won't get a ticket that actually necessitates raising your rates...so please just give us an extra $30 a year for absolutely NO benefit to you.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Comedian Robert Klein used to have a bit about insurance as being like going to a bookie: "I'll bet you a hundred dollars that you die or that you don't die".

One of my musical heroes, American composer Charles Ives, was considered one of the great insurance minds of the 20th century ( Ives the Man: His Life | charlesives.org ). He and a partner founded Mutual of New York (the company whose flashing sign led to Tommy James penning the song "Mony Mony", and established the idea of life insurance at the turn of the last century. He's my hero because, with a wife and 5 kids, he knew he had to have a better day job than composing avant-garde music. So he began the insurance company and composed on the side, using the profits from the company to subsidize much of American serious music pretty much up to WWII. That a person could be so substantially dedicated to music despite all those distractions earns him a thumbs up in my books.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

mhammer said:


> One of my musical heroes, American composer Charles Ives, was considered one of the great insurance minds of the 20th century ( Ives the Man: His Life | charlesives.org ). He and a partner founded Mutual of New York (the company whose flashing sign led to Tommy James penning the song "Mony Mony", and established the idea of life insurance at the turn of the last century. He's my hero because, with a wife and 5 kids, he knew he had to have a better day job than composing avant-garde music. So he began the insurance company and composed on the side, using the profits from the company to subsidize much of American serious music pretty much up to WWII. That a person could be so substantially dedicated to music despite all those distractions earns him a thumbs up in my books.


I always assumed it was this guy.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

when I started out, I remember paying less than $200 a year insurance for both home & auto. Now I pay more than that per month. Been driving for 42 years and I've never had an accident/made a claim on either the house or auto policies. 

When was the last time you saw an insurance company or broker go out of business by going broke? never???


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Yeah it sucks but rest assured, at least when you do go to file a claim it will most likely be denied.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Your insurance shouldn't go up just because you get a "minor" ticket. It's not like you've made a claim. Heck - even then your rates shouldn't go up now that I think of it..


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

davetcan said:


> How the hell did we ever get ourselves into this situation. Pretty soon we're going to have to insure everything we do, up to and including saying the wrong thing to someone and hurting their feelings I suspect. What really gets me is that we go along our merry way paying for "insurance" so that if something bad happens we'll be covered. Why then should our rates go up if that bad thing happens? isn't that what we're paying for in the first place? Look at this latest piece of shit letter I just received from Allstate;
> 
> "_With your insurance renewal right around the corner, we wanted to give you the great news - you've been preapproved to add Ticket Forgiveness to your auto policy!
> 
> ...



What was their definition of 'minor'?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

colchar said:


> What was their definition of 'minor'?


Good question, here's the rest of the letter. What a complete load of shit. I'll be shopping around because of this, idiots. keep an eye out for this on your next renewal. At least it's "optional" for now.

_"Already have Claims Forgiveness on your auto policy? Save $5 off the regular Ticket Forgiveness price – add it to your policy for only $25! 

Avoid paying more for your auto insurance as a result of most minor traffic violations* with Ticket Forgiveness. Simply reply to this email or click here to get started. 

Thank you for being a valued Allstate customer! We appreciate your business and look forward to serving you for many years to come."

* "Minor traffic tickets" and "minor traffic violations" refer to certain minor highway traffic convictions in the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. Available to customers in on Ontario only. Other eligibility requirements, terms and conditions apply. Rates will not be increased or surcharged if insured has no more than one minor Highway Traffic Act conviction every 3 years._


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Your insurance shouldn't go up just because you get a "minor" ticket. It's not like you've made a claim. Heck - even then your rates shouldn't go up now that I think of it..


Yep, so now there putting yet another "risk" contingency in place. Just another cash grab.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

davetcan said:


> _* "Minor traffic tickets" and "minor traffic violations" refer to certain minor highway traffic convictions in the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. Available to customers in on Ontario only. Other eligibility requirements, terms and conditions apply. Rates will not be increased or surcharged if insured has no more than one minor Highway Traffic Act conviction every 3 years._


So you can have ONE TICKET every three years - and it only costs you $90! Hory Fluug 

I got my first speeding ticket in almost 40 years this past summer for "10 over". The ticket was 30-something bucks. I can't wait to see what my insurance will do.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> So you can have ONE TICKET every three years - and it only costs you $90! Hory Fluug
> 
> I got my first speeding ticket in almost 40 years this past summer for "10 over". The ticket was 30-something bucks. I can't wait to see what my insurance will do.


Don't worry, I'm sure Wynne will be all over this, she is coming up to an election soon.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Insurance and taxation share one big thing in common: they both are on the eternal hunt for fine-tuning and situationally-appropriate adjustments. In the case of taxes, tax codes are supposedly revised to compensate for circumstances where the amount of, or applicability of, certain taxes or deductions needs tweaking. In the case of insurance, the hunt is for sources of risk (and reduced risk) that would tune premiums to anticipated risk.

I AM* NOT* SAYING EITHER GETS IT RIGHT. The policy analysts, economists and actuaries who come up with this stuff seem, from the outside, to be insensitive to how their "adjustments" complicate things for those who are on the receiving end. I'm confident that's not their intent, but that's all too often how it ends up.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

davetcan said:


> Don't worry, I'm sure Wynne will be all over this, she is coming up to an election soon.


Yup - if you drive an electric car maybe.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

So i found this site a few weeks back as I was shopping rates on a newer vehicle. lowestrates.ca Scottish and York are the cheapest and may end up being the cheapest litterally when it comes time to pay anything out. Scottish..... says it all right there lol.

I haven't switched it over yet but within the next 7 days I will. Does it matter "how cheap is too cheap"? I mean if something was to happen i'd like to know I won't be fighting an insurance company for every little benefit I receive. My wife works closely to the industry (psychologist for a lot of accident claims) and had her own accident 4 years back. Rearended by a transport on the 403 in Hamilton and had to go to quite a few independent exams which no doubt cost the company (state farm) more dough than just paying for 12 more massage sessions or whatever was requested. The only thing they didn't fight her on was compensation for the car, which was more than fair.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Moosehead said:


> So i found this site a few weeks back as I was shopping rates on a newer vehicle. lowestrates.ca Scottish and York are the cheapest and may end up being the cheapest litterally when it comes time to pay anything out. Scottish..... says it all right there lol.


Hey, I take great issue with that statement (albeit quite true) 

And thanks for the heads up!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Insurance and taxation share one big thing in common: they both are on the eternal hunt for fine-tuning and situationally-appropriate adjustments. In the case of taxes, tax codes are supposedly revised to compensate for circumstances where the amount of, or applicability of, certain taxes or deductions needs tweaking. In the case of insurance, the hunt is for sources of risk (and reduced risk) that would tune premiums to anticipated risk.
> 
> I AM* NOT* SAYING EITHER GETS IT RIGHT. The policy analysts, economists and actuaries who come up with this stuff seem, from the outside, to be insensitive to how their "adjustments" complicate things for those who are on the receiving end. *I'm confident that's not their intent*, but that's all too often how it ends up.


I believe that both agencies are just in it to get as much money as they think they can get away with. *I'm confident that IS their intent*.

edited because I was obviously not awake while typing.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

1SweetRide said:


> Well, you don't have to have home insurance, you can cancel collision on the car and raise the deductible. But, yeah, they're insuring me right out of motorcycling. $1000.00 a year for a 16 year old bike. No tickets, no accidents, no commuting on the bike. $1000.00 for 4 months riding. Every year my premium has gone up.


Yep, bike insurance killed that activity for me when I moved out here 25 years ago. It went from $300/6 mo in AB (private, competitive insurance) to $1000/6 mo in BC (govt tax-grab insurance company). $1000 bucks to insure a $2500 bike. WTF? 

Sold the bike, saved the grand a year - and pissed it all away on guitar gear. I'm much happier now. Hardly miss the bike - except for a few weeks every spring when they come out of hiding.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Davecan: I just wanted to let you know that insurance has been a scam ever since it was introduced. Unfortunately, it is a necessary thing to have, these days.

As a company, we have paid about $200,000.00 for liability insurance over the last 10 years and have not used it once and likely never will but if someone somehow hurt themselves and blamed it on us, we could be out of business without it.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Recent changes regarding auto insurance mean that most people are fucked when it comes to collecting anything for injuries through the accident benefit scheme which is the stuff that your own insurer is supposed to pay if you get hurt. Decisions about that are now being dealt with by the same people in the government who decide if you get a fishing license. Before this it was an autonomous tribunal system for accident benefits. But what you have now is government bozos taking a very short period of time to reach a decision about benefits payable to someone who might be catastrophically injured and messed up for the rest of their life. And, the right to sue in court for accident benefits is removed so there is no other way to go now except this useless new government scheme which even the insurance lawyers are saying is crap.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

(**This is not a_ defense_ of insurance companies, okay?)

One of the difficulties with insurance is that the instinct of almost every business is to get bigger. And when an insurance company gets bigger, that means they insure more _kinds_ of things, in an effort to acquire broader reach in to the potential market. But the caveat is that the more sorts of things you insure, the more risk you undertake, and the more risk you undertake, the more you have to turn to policy-holder populations X and Y to offset the losses incurred from policy-holder population Y.

If an insurer is in any conceivable way on the hook for claims stemming from flooding, they are almost necessarily going to have to figure out ways to recover those payouts from other sorts of premiums. If they charged the folks making flood-related claims what it actually costs to offset the claim payouts, nobody would have flood insurance because it would be too expensive. So they find ways to recover some of those costs, distributed across other sorts of policies, but in a way that is ideally tuned to relative risk.

And as others can attest to, one of the ways in which claims costs are minimized is by finding ways to not honour claims in the first place. Incidentally, one of the miseries that the _Affordable Care Act_ (AKA Obamacare) was trying to rectify was insurers deciding that some people would simply be uninsurable, as a way of minimizing their own risk. Of course, what it was attempting to fix - that truly needed fixing - is entirely separate from the eventual effectiveness of the fix-as-planned.

Ultimately, insurance is exactly like a casino. The assumption is that, when all is said and done, _some_ folks are going to win money, but the house will win more than all those folks combined. That's neither evil nor fair. It's simply the business model.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Wardo said:


> Recent changes regarding auto insurance mean that most people are fucked when it comes to collecting anything for injuries through the accident benefit scheme which is the stuff that your own insurer is supposed to pay if you get hurt. Decisions about that are now being dealt with by the same people in the government who decide if you get a fishing license. Before this it was an autonomous tribunal system for accident benefits. But what you have now is government bozos taking a very short period of time to reach a decision about benefits payable to someone who might be catastrophically injured and messed up for the rest of their life. And, the right to sue in court for accident benefits is removed so there is no other way to go now except this useless new government scheme which even the insurance lawyers are saying is crap.


Im not up to date with recent changes but I call bullshit. At least partly bullshit on the inability to battle it out in court. Many of the MVA claims my wife works with are looming court battles for benefits for cat. impairment. Most settle before court, some go to mediation and a few go on to fight it in court. Any link to what you;re talking about?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> (**This is not a_ defense_ of insurance companies, okay?)
> 
> One of the difficulties with insurance is that the instinct of almost every business is to get bigger. And when an insurance company gets bigger, that means they insure more _kinds_ of things, in an effort to acquire broader reach in to the potential market. But the caveat is that the more sorts of things you insure, the more risk you undertake, and the more risk you undertake, the more you have to turn to policy-holder populations X and Y to offset the losses incurred from policy-holder population Y.
> 
> ...


You're right - it's EXACTLY like Taxation


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> You're right - it's EXACTLY like Taxation


I'm shocked more governments haven't woken up to this scam by now and started offering us their "less expensive" version. The Mob used to run protection and gambling but so far the govs have only muscled in on one of those. Oh, I mustn't forget illegal drugs, govt is getting into that game now.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

BC has a provincial auto insurance plan (though I expect BC members to articulate how it is not _completely_ a provincial plan). As such, one would expect a better integration between public safety data provided by the Ministry of Transport (or whatever they call it there) and the insurance administration. That would include identifying intersections that are prone to vehicular collisions (that end up costing the provincial auto insurance plan) and redesigning them so as to reduce the frequency of collisions. In other words, reducing risk for the insurer by intervening in the _sources_ of risk. But they didn't. They simply paid out like any insurer that was an innocent bystander.

We lived at an intersection in Victoria for several years that had at least two major collisions every year, and always on a Saturday night. It was at the intersection of two streets that transitioned from 2-way to 1-way (and vice versa), where both streets were headed downhill, such that braking capacity was diminished. I paced it off, and at 60kph, which is a conservative estimate of what they'd be driving at 12:45AM on a Sunday morning, oncoming vehicles had approximately 700msec from the first moment of visibility to the moment of impact. We'd be quietly watching SNL, and hear two thuds, separated by about a half second. The first was one vehicle t-boning the other, and the second was the t-boned vehicle taking out a light-post. The place would be crawling with ambulances and fire trucks until 4AM, in addition to street crews cleanng up the broken glass everywhere.

The point where vehicles intersected was too narrow for anyone to swerve and avoid collision, there was a huge shrubbery obstructing a clear view, and neither street had any means to slow drivers down, like those low grade speed bumps designed to tell you when you're veering into the other lane. The ministry has the traffic/police reports. Why not use them to change the problematic intersections?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> BC has a provincial auto insurance plan (though I expect BC members to articulate how it is not _completely_ a provincial plan). As such, one would expect a better integration between public safety data provided by the Ministry of Transport (or whatever they call it there) and the insurance administration. That would include identifying intersections that are prone to vehicular collisions (that end up costing the provincial auto insurance plan) and redesigning them so as to reduce the frequency of collisions. In other words, reducing risk for the insurer by intervening in the _sources_ of risk. But they didn't. They simply paid out like any insurer that was an innocent bystander.
> 
> We lived at an intersection in Victoria for several years that had at least two major collisions every year, and always on a Saturday night. It was at the intersection of two streets that transitioned from 2-way to 1-way (and vice versa), where both streets were headed downhill, such that braking capacity was diminished. I paced it off, and at 60kph, which is a conservative estimate of what they'd be driving at 12:45AM on a Sunday morning, oncoming vehicles had approximately 700msec from the first moment of visibility to the moment of impact. We'd be quietly watching SNL, and hear two thuds, separated by about a half second. The first was one vehicle t-boning the other, and the second was the t-boned vehicle taking out a light-post. The place would be crawling with ambulances and fire trucks until 4AM, in addition to street crews cleanng up the broken glass everywhere.
> 
> The point where vehicles intersected was too narrow for anyone to swerve and avoid collision, there was a huge shrubbery obstructing a clear view, and neither street had any means to slow drivers down, like those low grade speed bumps designed to tell you when you're veering into the other lane. The ministry has the traffic/police reports. Why not use them to change the problematic intersections?


Two possibilities:

1. There's only 2 "major" accidents a year and that's an acceptable number.

2. "Left hand meet Right hand".


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Moosehead said:


> Im not up to date with recent changes but I call bullshit. At least partly bullshit on the inability to battle it out in court. Many of the MVA claims my wife works with are looming court battles for benefits for cat. impairment. Most settle before court, some go to mediation and a few go on to fight it in court. Any link to what you;re talking about?


http://oatleyvigmond.com/wp-content...es-To-Auto-Legislation-Ryan-Murray.pdf?fae010

Change on right to sue in superior court for accident benefits came in April of this year. There is a Charter challenge but I haven't been following it.

Most AB stuff including CAT previously went through the Financial Services Commission Tribunals - they were not "court" per se, they were tribunals with Arbitrators not Judges. The option of proceeding in superior court was there but most people went through FSCO because the Arbitrators were experts in this specialized area more so than Judges and there was a large data base of FSCO decisions to use as precedents for interpreting the AB legislation.

That is all gone and now you have LAT (licensing tribunal) hearing AB matters including CAT files. LAT is not following prior FISCO cases - they are going to make it up on their own. This is insane and the only way to make people use it was to eliminate the right to sue otherwise plaintiff counsel would say fuck this and go back to issuing claims in superior court because there is effectively no accident benefit scheme in Ontario right now - what they have is garbage.

State Farm and Aviva are among the worst to try and collect AB benefits from and most other insurance firms are following the State Farm model.

They have also increased the existing monetary restrictions on the right to sue in superior court for tort general damages as well. Tort is different from AB but I can't be bothered getting into that right now. There is a $38,000 deductible back to the insurer on tort general damage awards under $123,000. Most chronic pain awards in general damages will not get over 123K so that is why they raised it last year from the previous deductible cut off which was $100K.

The government likes the insurance companies a lot.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Two possibilities:
> 
> 1. There's only 2 "major" accidents a year and that's an acceptable number.
> 
> 2. "Left hand meet Right hand".


My money is on #2. Each incident probably cost _at least_ $100k to deal with in 1988 dollars, when you factor in the paramedics, the municipal workers, the replacement of the lamp-post, the firefighters, and of course the medical costs and replacement costs of the vehicles. A few low-grade speed bumps that cause drivers to cover their brake would have saved a ton of money. And that's just one intersection.

Again, charging policy-holders more is not the only, nor the best way to mitigate risk.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

davetcan said:


> *I'm shocked* more governments haven't woken up to this scam by now and started offering us their "less expensive" version. The Mob used to run protection and gambling but so far the govs have only muscled in on one of those. Oh, I mustn't forget illegal drugs, govt is getting into that game now.


You are shocked? Really? With all the things that we have seen by governments of all sorts and knowing you have seen them too, I am shocked that you are shocked.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

1SweetRide said:


> Well, you don't have to have home insurance, you can cancel collision on the car and raise the deductible. But, yeah, they're insuring me right out of motorcycling. $1000.00 a year for a 16 year old bike. No tickets, no accidents, no commuting on the bike. $1000.00 for 4 months riding. Every year my premium has gone up.


The 3 Harleys cost $825...That's the '81, the 2000 and the 2005. Toss in the two trucks, the car and the house and our bill is just over $1600 a year. Tickets don't seem to make a difference. I ride every day when I can. Just depends where you live.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

I wanna live where you live


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

1SweetRide said:


> I wanna live where you live


When I moved from B.C. ICBC was charging me $635 a year for basic on the '77 Harley....that's with a 43% reduction 'cause I'm such a safe driver....no accidents for 5 years. Alberta wanted more because I had no Alberta driving record. So the bike became my wife's (on paper).....$199 a year. I know quite a few people in BC whose bikes etc. are insured in Ab. When I move back to BC I'll still keep the bikes etc. insured in Ab. Oh yeah, because it's been such a good year I started riding in March and put the bike away last week. The problem here is most insurance companies won't insure motorcycles over 30 years old and AMA won't insure Harleys. Ab. doesn't have Vintage/collecter/antique etc. motorcycle classifications.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> You are shocked? Really? With all the things that we have seen by governments of all sorts and knowing you have seen them too, I am shocked that you are shocked.


I really don't think you have a clue as to what I was saying.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

davetcan said:


> I really don't think you have a clue as to what I was saying.


I am very aware of what you were saying. No one should be shocked at what is going on at the injustices we see at every turn in the world of today unless they don't read or ignore the news or have their head in the sand (which I know you don't).


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> I am very aware of what you were saying. No one should be shocked at what is going on at the injustices we see at every turn in the world of today unless they don't read or ignore the news or have their head in the sand (which I know you don't).


So then why would my being shocked that the government has missed a golden opportunity to suck some more money out of the working population shock you?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

davetcan said:


> So then why would my being shocked that the government has missed a golden opportunity to suck some more money out of the working population shock you?


Maybe I misread your post. It looks like I shocked myself. Sorry about that!


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

And then there's house insurance. If you have a mortgage you must have house insurance, no major lending institution will give you a mortgage without it, or renew an existing mortgage without seeing proof that you have it. So then, the insurance company looks at your house and if it thinks any part of it is getting old and might fail(roof, older windows/plumbing etc) they inform you that they will refuse to continue insuring your house until you show proof that you have made repairs in those areas. Therefore, they make sure they are insuring a house that is unlikely to have anything happen that might result in a claim. Just one more of the reasons I sold my house and moved to an apartment, a few others being, mortgage insurance(on top of house insurance), heating costs, annual oil furnace inspection charges, property tax, the cost of repairs to appliances and lawn mowers etc...., now my heat is included in the rent, I don't have to mow the lawn, shovel snow or pay to have appliances fixed when they fail. I have been able to actually get debt free and save money for the first time in many years. Oh sure there are some "manic neighbor" situations from time to time but they're short lived and add a level of excitement and drama that can be fun. Of course, this is a mid sized building owned by a reputable company that maintains it's buildings amazingly, a very important feature if you're considering renting.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Jim9guitars said:


> And then there's house insurance. If you have a mortgage you must have house insurance, no major lending institution will give you a mortgage without it, or renew an existing mortgage without seeing proof that you have it. So then, the insurance company looks at your house and if it thinks any part of it is getting old and might fail(roof, older windows/plumbing etc) they inform you that they will refuse to continue insuring your house until you show proof that you have made repairs in those areas. Therefore, they make sure they are insuring a house that is unlikely to have anything happen that might result in a claim. _* Just one more of the reasons I sold my house and moved to an apartment*_, a few others being, mortgage insurance(on top of house insurance), heating costs, annual oil furnace inspection charges, property tax, the cost of repairs to appliances and lawn mowers etc...., now my heat is included in the rent, I don't have to mow the lawn, shovel snow or pay to have appliances fixed when they fail. I have been able to actually get debt free and save money for the first time in many years. Oh sure there are some "manic neighbor" situations from time to time but they're short lived and add a level of excitement and drama that can be fun. Of course, this is a mid sized building owned by a reputable company that maintains it's buildings amazingly, a very important feature if you're considering renting.


But of course, everything you describe is just one more of the reasons why apartment rents are as high as they often are, and as non-competitive with ownership as they can often be. Your landlord, or property-management company also has to cover those same costs. YOU try to minimize your risk by renting. THEY try to minimize their risk by over-charging.

That's not intended to be a scolding, or an insistent recommendation to buy instead of rent. Rather, nobody gets out of this _without_ having to figure out how to manage risk. It never leaves the stage.


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

mhammer said:


> But of course, everything you describe is just one more of the reasons why apartment rents are as high as they often are, and as non-competitive with ownership as they can often be. Your landlord, or property-management company also has to cover those same costs. YOU try to minimize your risk by renting. THEY try to minimize their risk by over-charging.
> 
> That's not intended to be a scolding, or an insistent recommendation to buy instead of rent. Rather, nobody gets out of this _without_ having to figure out how to manage risk. It never leaves the stage.


All valid points, but the fact is I am paying out far less in living costs per month, allowing me to save money in the bank each month. When I owned a house I was starting to pay one credit card bill with another credit card because so many people and companies had their hand in my pocket. My rent is a little higher than my mortgage payments per month were, but now I'm not paying out all of the above items(plus a few more I haven't mentioned). I had to look around and compromise because rents are high, especially if you want a lot of room and a balcony. I went for one with no balcony but with two bedrooms(I'm separated but my Daughter has lived here off and on, now it's my workout room). I would suggest that one of the best ways to buy a house now is if you are in a stable relationship and both of you work full time and have no debt going in, and take all of the extra monthly costs into consideration carefully first.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Maggs just had a conversation with our broker about us being listed as "non-smokers" on our home insurance and getting whatever reduction that represents. Our broker informed us that that means that NOBODY can smoke on our property anytime or it could violate any claim, regardless of it's nature. It came up because Magg's brother was up from South Carolina for a funeral and I let him smoke in the garage when it was raining.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Electraglide said:


> When I moved from B.C. ICBC was charging me $635 a year for basic on the '77 Harley....that's with a 43% reduction 'cause I'm such a safe driver....no accidents for 5 years. Alberta wanted more because I had no Alberta driving record. So the bike became my wife's (on paper).....$199 a year. *I know quite a few people in BC whose bikes etc. are insured in Ab. When I move back to BC I'll still keep the bikes etc. insured in Ab.* Oh yeah, because it's been such a good year I started riding in March and put the bike away last week. The problem here is most insurance companies won't insure motorcycles over 30 years old and AMA won't insure Harleys. Ab. doesn't have Vintage/collecter/antique etc. motorcycle classifications.


That's a great idea - until you try and make a claim. Insurance companies bend over backwards looking for reasons to deny claims and not pay out. You are giving them a huge one. May as well go without insurance altogether.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> That's a great idea - until you try and make a claim. Insurance companies bend over backwards looking for reasons to deny claims and not pay out. You are giving them a huge one. May as well go without insurance altogether.


Exactly. Your address on your insurance better match your drivers license, health care ID, province of residence for income tax, etc., etc.
They have employees who spend their days finding ways to void claims. If they think it was deliberate they will push for fraud charges so they can put them in the newspapers (no names) as deterrents.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> That's a great idea - until you try and make a claim.


Yeah, anything happens and yer SOL when they find that you've been insuring it in a cheap place but living and driving somewhere else. The rates are based on the risk assessment for where you live so its misrep to tell them o/wise and they can and will drop you no problem on that one.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

jb welder said:


> Exactly. Your address on your insurance better match your drivers license, health care ID, province of residence for income tax, etc., etc.
> They have employees who spend their days finding ways to void claims. If they think it was deliberate they will push for fraud charges so they can put them in the newspapers (no names) as deterrents.


It will. My "residence" will be in Ab. That's where the house I own is. I can work where ever I want and stay where I am working. Part of the thing high deaf is going back to your "place of residence" every once in a while. If you are going to leave a paper trail leave one that benefits you. jb.....the name and address on the insurance don't have to match that on your dl. They have to match the name and address on the registration....at least here in Ab. and there is no address on my Ab. health care card. Claims have been made and paid no problem.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

The insurance company many investigate any claims it feels are questionable. They will talk to neighbors, workmates, people you know socially. They will look at social media (although I suspect that won't be an issue in your case - or mine). 

They really don't ever want to pay out. You may be surprised you much money they spend to not have to spend money on you.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I always thought it was stupid to insure every vehicle you own. 

You can only drive one at a time. Just charge me for the most expensive and then f' off.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> The insurance company many investigate any claims it feels are questionable. They will talk to neighbors, workmates, people you know socially. They will look at social media (although I suspect that won't be an issue in your case - or mine).
> 
> They really don't ever want to pay out. You may be surprised you much money they spend to not have to spend money on you.


Good to know that the people I know socially won't talk to anyone like an insurance investigator. Same with neighbors and work mates. That only applies if you have work mates by the way. As far as social media goes, this is about it for me. The insurance place would have to know my username first and there is no direct link to me. 
@adcandour Here, the more vehicles and things you insure with a company the cheaper it is. Right now the two trucks and the car are driven on a daily basis and the three bikes are fully covered in case something happens like fire etc. . Here, you have to have insurance on a vehicle to get your plate renewed. If the insurance lapses and the vehicle is over 10 years old most companies want you to get it inspected. Luckily the company that insures the '81 didn't ask for that.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

adcandour said:


> I always thought it was stupid to insure every vehicle you own.
> 
> You can only drive one at a time. Just charge me for the most expensive and then f' off.


I like this thought. Insure the driver, not the vehicle. Damn, almost sounds logical, unless you're the insurer, who likes to insure both. Only one person can drive a car at a time too, in theory anyway


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

davetcan said:


> I like this thought. Insure the driver, not the vehicle. Damn, almost sounds logical, unless you're the insurer, who likes to insure both. Only one person can drive a car at a time too, in theory anyway


Was a time when you got the plate and transferred it from vehicle to vehicle.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

davetcan said:


> I like this thought. Insure the driver, not the vehicle. Damn, almost sounds logical, unless you're the insurer, who likes to insure both. Only one person can drive a car at a time too, in theory anyway


In theory and only if you have one car. As far as insuring the driver, what happens when the driver comes from a place where the driver is not insured? Or, if your vehicle, as in most cases, is not covered by your house insurance.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> Was a time when you got the plate and transferred it from vehicle to vehicle.


I still do that. My car plates have been on three vehicles so far and truck plates on two.
As long as you still have the plate portion of your ownership slip.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

laristotle said:


> I still do that. My car plates have been on three vehicles so far and truck plates on two.
> As long as you still have the plate portion of your ownership slip.


But, do you take the plate off your truck and put it on your car and then on another truck all in the same day? Here you can sorta do that for a short period of time, if you want to bend the rules a little bit. I mean you have 14 days don't you? The plates on the Ford have been on 3 other trucks since I moved here. The plates on the Charger have been on every car the wife has had for the last 20 or so years. When I had 6 bikes I used to have one plate.....I mean a Harley is a Harley, right. The name on the registrations for the bikes matched the name on the insurance. There are ways around things. Sorta like an unmarked D or R plate.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2016)

I've only done that when I bring home a fresh purchase.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Electraglide said:


> When I move back to BC I'll still keep the bikes etc. insured in Ab.





Electraglide said:


> It will. My "residence" will be in Ab. That's where the house I own is. I can work where ever I want and stay where I am working.


Well then you're not really moving back to B.C. You are still considered an Alberta resident. If you were not you would not be able to get insurance there. So we're not talking about the same thing.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

jb welder said:


> Well then you're not really moving back to B.C. You are still considered an Alberta resident. If you were not you would not be able to get insurance there. So we're not talking about the same thing.


Say I live in BC 364/24/7. And that I work there. And I own a house there. Say I have an address in AB where the vehicles are registered and insured to. I'm still paying cheaper insurance.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

I sure hope that this isn't discoverable in court if you get in an accident and suffer a brain injury requiring attendant care and your insurer denies the claim based on misrepresentation forcing your family to sue for coverage.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Lord-Humongous said:


> I sure hope that this isn't discoverable in court if you get in an accident and suffer a brain injury requiring attendant care and your insurer denies the claim based on misrepresentation forcing your family to sue for coverage.


No misrepresentation here and anyway, it's not discover-able even if it went to court.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/10/coverage-down-premiums-up

Just some followup on the recent changes in Ontario. Even the insurance defense counsel who I've talked to don't think much of the new government tribunal system for accident benefits. They had to take away the right to sue for AB o/wise no one go through the tribunals; people would use the superior court instead. There is a charter challenge on restricting the right to sue on this but I haven't read it yet although I've been told it will likely fail.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Electraglide said:


> .... it's not discoverable even if it went to court.


Depends what you mean by "discovery."


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Wardo said:


> Depends what you mean by "discovery."


Not ''discovery'', discoverable. There's a bit of a difference. 
@Lord-Humongous knowing my family someone might trip over the plug long before it gets to that point.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Discoverable as in something that they are allowed to ask questions about at an examination for discovery under oath in a law suit. They can ask questions that are relevant to an issue in an action such as where do you live where do you work, where did you live before etc. They will also do stuff to find out if what you say is true. If it turns out that you live in one place most of the time but have your vehicles insured in a different place, particularly a place where rates are low because there is only one other car in that county and the owner never goes out much, then the nature of the risk where you really live is likely different than where you told them you live so on that they'd be lookin to get out of the policy if you wracked yourself up real good and it was gonna be expensive to look after you for the the next 20 years. Premiums are based on the nature of the risk which includes how risky it is where you live. So the policy would be voidable if you misrep where you live or even don't tell them that you moved somewhere else to live.

I'm not saying any of that applies to you, I'm just mentioning it in case anyone reading this might be innerested and also because I got fuck all else to do right now...lol


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Wardo said:


> Discoverable as in something that they are allowed to ask questions about at an examination for discovery under oath in a law suit. They can ask questions that are relevant to an issue in an action such as where do you live where do you work, where did you live before etc. They will also do stuff to find out if what you say is true. If it turns out that you live in one place most of the time but have your vehicles insured in a different place, particularly a place where rates are low because there is only one other car in that county and the owner never goes out much, then the nature of the risk where you really live is likely different than where you told them you live so on that they'd be lookin to get out of the policy if you wracked yourself up real good and it was gonna be expensive to look after you for the the next 20 years. Premiums are based on the nature of the risk which includes how risky it is where you live. So the policy would be voidable if you misrep where you live or even don't tell them that you moved somewhere else to live.
> 
> I'm not saying any of that applies to you, I'm just mentioning it in case anyone reading this might be innerested and also because I got fuck all else to do right now...lol


I don't think it applies. As far as risk goes I'd say it's as risky if not riskier to ride in Ab as it is to ride in BC. Yet the insurance is a lot cheaper in Ab for comparable insurance.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Electraglide said:


> I don't think it applies. As far as risk goes I'd say it's as risky if not riskier to ride in Ab as it is to ride in BC. Yet the insurance is a lot cheaper in Ab for comparable insurance.


Even if the risk is the same, the point from the insurer's perspective is that they've been told one thing when something else is actually the case so that alone is enough to argue misrep. It applies, I see it once in awhile. But people do what they want, I don't care one way or another.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

Wardo said:


> Discoverable as in something that they are allowed to ask questions about at an examination for discovery under oath in a law suit.


Emails for example, can be discoverable. So if you are asked to produce them, they can be used as evidence.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Same with your Facebook page. Ontario courts have ordered that plaintiffs in a tort mva action provide defense counsel with access to it. At discovery they ask for an undertaking not to delete anything and then they as for access but usually they ask for copies of an pictures there and a printout of the time line. I give the undertaking to preserve but refusal or an advisement when it comes to providing the copies. So far no one has brought a motion to get then pictures timeline copies.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Electraglide said:


> I don't think it applies. As far as risk goes I'd say it's as risky if not riskier to ride in Ab as it is to ride in BC. Yet the insurance is a lot cheaper in Ab for comparable insurance.


What you think is irrelevant to an insurance company if they want to limit the amount they pay out (and they always do - just give them an inch and you'll see). You are playing by their rules, not yours.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> What you think is irrelevant to an insurance company if they want to limit the amount they pay out (and they always do - just give them an inch and you'll see). You are playing by their rules, not yours.


Well, there are loopholes in their rules. Even ICBC.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Loop holes cost money; how much do you want to spend...lol

MVA insurance claims are usually done on a contingency fee basis so no one will take a case if there is doubt about whether or not the policy is valid because there is no source for them to get paid if there is no policy. If there is doubt about it most firms will pass on the file or drop you later if the policy is found to be invalid.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Wardo said:


> Loop holes cost money; how much do you want to spend...lol
> 
> MVA insurance claims are usually done on a contingency fee basis so no one will take a case if there is doubt about whether or not the policy is valid because there is no source for them to get paid if there is no policy. If there is doubt about it most firms will pass on the file or drop you later if the policy is found to be invalid.


Shall we say that the policys etc. are valid. Don't see why there would be a problem if someone ran into me. Last time one of the vehicles was in an accident the insurance company paid and the policy didn't go up. No contingency fee or anything else. The wife's grandson was driving one of the trucks and scraped another vehicle.


----------

