Go to Naut's Thoughts
- Add a comment
- Go to Truck vs. Blogger...Part VII, Fun with Ontario's Automobile Insurance
They got ya no matter what. I could go on and on about some of my experiences
but I think everybody covered them.
posted by
Vermont01
on July 20, 2015 at 7:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Things are never dull when insurance companies are around. Thankfully, I have not had any negative interactions with any.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on July 20, 2015 at 5:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Nautikos
Krisles, thank you very much for that excellent explanation, which indeed makes perfect sense if one accepts the basic premise of 'No Fault' insurance, and I am sure my friend will concur with you, LOL - I'll have to discuss it with her...I can even see the benefits in vehicular accidents, but I do have a problem with having it apply in cases such a these, where the driver of a car or truck injures a non-driving user of the road...It seems to me that legislation could be designed so as to remove some of the resulting inequities...And yes, the 30k is just a cash-grab...Incidentally, our law firms generally charge only 25 per cent of the damages paid, ant in some cases even less...Anyway, thanks again! I think this was the most extensive comment I have ever received...
posted by
Nautikos
on July 19, 2015 at 5:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Insurance companies!!! Same thing in Australia andif you can work it our you are very smart indeed. And of course noone of it really compensates for the damage to your lifestyle and the pain and stuff.
posted by
Kabu
on July 19, 2015 at 4:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
That is quite the story and I hate to think of possible charges if and accident is our own fault. Back in about 2001 after Joyce died I was rear ended in my brand new Dodge van by a guy driving a rental car. I was shocked when the insurance paid me that $28,000.00 to pay off Dodge very rapidly.
posted by
WileyJohn
on July 19, 2015 at 4:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I can only speak from the perspective of US insurance and it's really not that complicated if you realize the no-fault concept was created to eliminate the overload in the courts and to make sure everyone got taken care of when they were injured in an accident 'regardless of fault'....at first the concept only applied to injuries and it still (to my knowledge) only applies to motor vehicular accident-related injuries.
To get people getting their bills and income paid immediately without having to wait on the delay built into liability based settlements, it was determined everyone had to go to their own insurance company in all events except things like fatality, permanent disfigurement, etc.......and (in the US) a threshold dollar amount of medical bills after which you may put in a liability claim for pain and suffering to the at fault party, if there was one, and your insurance company can collect back what it paid out.
Now, there remained the issue of cyclists and pedestrians....how to treat them? If they are vehicle owners, in most states here, they were required to go to their own auto carriers.....this is because there isn't pedestrian insurance/bicycle insurance/motorcycle insurance/automobile insurance differentiation in policies so auto policies, in general, cover everything that happens on public roads whether on foot, two or four wheels.
Your bike wasn't covered because no fault involves injuries to human beings only ....and the auto policy physical damage coverages (collision and comprehensive) only cover the vehicle listed on the declaration pages - and paid for via premium.....so, of course, it wasn't covered there. The No Fault legislation originally had nothing to do with property damage and so liability remained the determining factor in whether someone else paid for it or you paid for it - unless you have some kind of bicycle policy on it from the store where you purchased it.
If you had not owned a vehicle, but lived in a home with a spouse who did own a vehicle so that you were covered under her policy......that's considered the same as owning the vehicle yourself - again, it's simpler - there are just too many variations out there to be able to write all of them into law, so the order in which coverage applies, etc., is very structured and kept as simple as possible. I have no idea how you would have gotten coverage from a girlfriend's car....but, you're in Canada and maybe it's just really different there....also, it's been many years now since I actually worked with No Fault.
Which brings me to ....this is just a broad outline of how it was when I worked in it, and where I worked in it. But the principles are the same throughout the No Fault world. I understand everything in your story except the girlfriend and the $30k. If you got an attorney, you would have to pay 1/3 of any settlement to the attorney....... if you exceeded the 'threshold' so that you could legally then put in a tort claim, then your insurance company could get back all their money but if your bills were $30k then you should have been able to put in a tort claim and collect for pain and suffering as though No Fault didn't apply. So, scratching my head on the $30K. Otherwise, that's my take on what happened to you. I'm just glad you made it out fit as a fiddle and I'm still sorry you had to go through it!
posted by
Krisles
on July 19, 2015 at 1:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Well if that wasn't enough to drive one round the bend. Insurance companies now put up the premium if one has had a couple of accidents that were not ones fault. The reasoning being the next one could be. It does appear that when one is young, one gets clobbered which might be reasonable, but then after a long period of careful driving one becomes as a rule old. That is a good excuse to increase the premium even though the poor old drivers only drive to do the shopping once a week.
posted by
C_C_T
on July 19, 2015 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply