Auto Rates to Go Up....But How Much

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/06/11...13-by-industry

The insurance industry is claiming it needs double-digit premium percent increases.

But Alberta's Automobile Insurance Rate Board says that's for it to decide.
Exactor Insurance Services Inc. was asking for a 13.5% increase, while Oliver Wyman eyed a 12.7% jump.
"I think it's unfortunate that we're talking about a double-digit increase...I think we all collectively gasped," said Barb Sulzenko-Laurie with the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
Alfred Savage, chairman of the AIRB, pointed out last year the increase was a proposed 10.9%, but ended up being 5%. The 2011 rate held steady at the 2010 levels.
The Consumer representative on the board Merle Taylor, said the industry is still posting profits and can't explain why body injury claims are so high.
"We're looking at 18.5% over two years," she said. "At the same time, you commented that the insurance business is profitable.

This could be a real can of worms:

Additionally, a court victory for one car owner brought about headaches for insurance providers. In the Dec. 6, 2012 ruling of Taylor v. Hrytsak, Judge Burgess awarded $17,000 for the loss of value to his vehicle.

[Ozy_Flame]

As long as they are making a profit margin, I can't understand this.

Unless the numbers are based on rising claim amounts because of changing weather.

And higher body injury claims - are Canadians turning into Americans, loving to claim injury and damages against each other? No love.

[Muta]

People are just more sensitive these days, I guess.

Love tap on your bumper from another driver? Serious neck injuries, months of rehabilitation and chronic physical mobility problems for life. Lawsuits abound, the only way to solve this is emptying out someone else's account.

People will look for any reason to claim anything. It's sad as hell.

[Tinordi]

I love the idea of insurance for use. Instead of a monthly premium I pay insurance on a per kilometer rate.

As a low usage driver I subsidize high usage drivers.

[Dion]

Increase the premiums of bad drivers and punish them.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I love the idea of insurance for use. Instead of a monthly premium I pay insurance on a per kilometer rate.

As a low usage driver I subsidize high usage drivers.

Except it's not about amount of usage, it's about amount of claims.

I'd be willing to bet that claim percentage (ie/ claims per time driving) among casual/"low-usage" drivers is MUCH higher than among high volume drivers, even though high usage drivers probably have more claims per vehicle.

Driving, just like anything, takes practice. The more you drive, hopefully, the better driver you are.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Except it's not about amount of usage, it's about amount of claims.

I'd be willing to bet that claim percentage (ie/ claims per time driving) among casual/"low-usage" drivers is MUCH higher than among high volume drivers, even though high usage drivers probably have more claims per vehicle.

Driving, just like anything, takes practice. The more you drive, hopefully, the better driver you are.

I used to think this was true, but I always seem to see cabbies making stupid moves. Maybe there is some point at which your skills start to decrease?

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I used to think this was true, but I always seem to see cabbies making stupid moves. Maybe there is some point at which your skills start to decrease?

Most cabbies are bad drivers because they don't care and are ignorant, not because they have decreased their skills. I find when driving near them, 50% of them will snap back into lane, stop their illegal turn, or not do illegal stops when you apply a firm strong horn of about 30-45 seconds duration. The other 50% have no clue why you are honking and honk back...

[CaptainYooh]

The established claim settlement system between insurance companies sucks and needs cardinal changes. I think it is the single biggest reason for the increases the insurance companies want. Each small claim turns into thousands of dollars by the time every "participant" in the system takes their own cut.

Case in point: my son literally touched the bumper of a taxi that stopped short on yellow on a slippery road. The taxi driver couldn't speak English, so he called his supervisor. Supervisor insisted on driving home with my son to speak to me. I photographed the damage – it was a small scuff, no more than one inch in diameter. No dent, just a scuff. And the bumper was scuffed all over to begin with. I could have had it repaired and repainted professionally for $350-$400 to a like new bumper. One month later, I had a call from the taxi company insurance adjuster asking for all of our insurance details and suggesting that there will be a substantial claim, over $10,000 to cover damages to the taxi company, insurers and the passenger, who "was scared and needed some counseling afterwards". I demanded to see the proof of damage, and they refused to provide it, stating that it was confidential. Are you kidding me??? Long story short, it went to my insurance company and they probably settled it at something, they didn't even care to tell me. My rate will go up, yes, and not because of the amount of claim, but the fact that I will now have an "at fault" claim on my history.

Everyone made money off this claim - adjusters on both sides, some auto-body shop, chiropractor and psychologist that the passenger probably went to etc. Giving the party at fault an opportunity to have the damage repaired in case of small-scale accidents would go long way in having the rates controlled better.

[Raekwon]

I guarantee you that within 2 years of the accident you will receive a statement of claim for his "Injuries".

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The established claim settlement system between insurance companies sucks and needs cardinal changes. I think it is the single biggest reason for the increases the insurance companies want. Each small claim turns into thousands of dollars by the time every "participant" in the system takes their own cut.

Case in point: my son literally touched the bumper of a taxi that stopped short on yellow on a slippery road. The taxi driver couldn't speak English, so he called his supervisor. Supervisor insisted on driving home with my son to speak to me. I photographed the damage – it was a small scuff, no more than one inch in diameter. No dent, just a scuff. And the bumper was scuffed all over to begin with. I could have had it repaired and repainted professionally for $350-$400 to a like new bumper. One month later, I had a call from the taxi company insurance adjuster asking for all of our insurance details and suggesting that there will be a substantial claim, over $10,000 to cover damages to the taxi company, insurers and the passenger, who "was scared and needed some counseling afterwards". I demanded to see the proof of damage, and they refused to provide it, stating that it was confidential. Are you kidding me??? Long story short, it went to my insurance company and they probably settled it at something, they didn't even care to tell me. My rate will go up, yes, and not because of the amount of claim, but the fact that I will now have an "at fault" claim on my history.

Everyone made money off this claim - adjusters on both sides, some auto-body shop, chiropractor and psychologist that the passenger probably went to etc. Giving the party at fault an opportunity to have the damage repaired in case of small-scale accidents would go long way in having the rates controlled better.

[GrrlGoalie33]

I thought there was a cap of $4000 for injuries?

[CaptainYooh]

You are thinking of the cap on "soft tissue" injuries. But there are a lot of other components of an insurance claim (e.g. lost time, psychological damage, settlement costs, admin costs etc.)

[Raekwon]

Also the new craze to get you outside of the cap is TMJ.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Most cabbies are bad drivers because they don't care and are ignorant, not because they have decreased their skills. I find when driving near them, 50% of them will snap back into lane, stop their illegal turn, or not do illegal stops when you apply a firm strong horn of about 30-45 seconds duration. The other 50% have no clue why you are honking and honk back...

Most cabbies are perceived as bad drivers because they are under time constraints, so they do illegal moves because if they don't the trip will be gone. As for illegal stops, it's probably to pick up or drop off a customer, maybe a handicapped customer, so they may ignore you.

Having said that, yeah there are some bad taxi drivers but as for skill, most are probably way ahead of the average driver.

[rd_aaron]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Except it's not about amount of usage, it's about amount of claims.

I'd be willing to bet that claim percentage (ie/ claims per time driving) among casual/"low-usage" drivers is MUCH higher than among high volume drivers, even though high usage drivers probably have more claims per vehicle.

Driving, just like anything, takes practice. The more you drive, hopefully, the better driver you are.

I also imagine that mostly highway drivers (high mileage) have far less claims per mile driven compared to low mileage drivers who exclusively drive in the city.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I love the idea of insurance for use. Instead of a monthly premium I pay insurance on a per kilometer rate.

As a low usage driver I subsidize high usage drivers.

Trying to jump on the "my lifestyle subsidizes someone else's lifestyle" bandwagon? Did you insurance company not ask you how far your commute is, and how many km per year you drive?

[macker]

Canadian Insurance Industry has had four consecutive years of billion dollar losses (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). The premiums of the many are needed to pay back the losses of the many. With over 60% of the Canadian payouts Alberta naturally has to pay its fair share. The actuaries know what the hail they are talking about

[Slava]

Originally Posted by macker

Canadian Insurance Industry has had four consecutive years of billion dollar losses (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012). The premiums of the many are needed to pay back the losses of the many. With over 60% of the Canadian payouts Alberta naturally has to pay its fair share. The actuaries know what the hail they are talking about

How many of these losses are attributable to a low interest rate environment and poor investment performance as opposed to increasing losses? My insurance already shot through the roof to deal with the hail damage issue anyway....

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Slava

How many of these losses are attributable to a low interest rate environment and poor investment performance as opposed to increasing losses? My insurance already shot through the roof to deal with the hail damage issue anyway....

And with that Slava was never heard from again . . . . .

[macker]

Originally Posted by Slava

How many of these losses are attributable to a low interest rate environment and poor investment performance as opposed to increasing losses? My insurance already shot through the roof to deal with the hail damage issue anyway....

I would be interested in seeing this break down if you can find it. As for hail this will be an ongoing battle as the storms are intensifying each year and the payouts are becoming larger with new records being set all the time. Not only have your rates shot through the roof but your coverage has also likely been restricted and capped and your deductible increased to mitigate the risk that the insurers are taking on in this part of the country. Name one neighborhood in Calgary that didn't cash in with a round of new roofs. If they didn't get one in 2009 they waited until a nice big storm in 2010 or 2011 or even 2012. The rates are slowing catching up to the point where they are through the roof. Low interest rates are interesting but not exclusive to the insurance industry.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-claims-w.html