Ontario gouged by car insurance

[frostyone]

" study found that consumers in Ontario pay 45% more for their auto insurance than BC consumers,"

The average auto insurance rate in Ontario was $2,383 while it was $1,324 in BC.

"This is the largest independent study ever to have been conducted on auto insurance rates in Canada, it used 3,776,997 rate quotes across 300 diverse rating groups.

Comparing the big cities, Torontonians spent the most on auto insurance ($2,950), followed by Edmonton residents ($1,865), people in Calgary ($1,753) and Vancouverites ($1,493).


"Consumers in Ontario have been clearly harmed by outrageous price increases for auto insurance "

In reply:
Insurance industry spokesman IBC vice-president Mark Yakabuski said
"Clearly, free market, private competition is alive and well in Ontario,"

:hys:

http://press.arrivenet.com/bus/article.php/670634.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/19/insurance050719.html

[Tim]

I'd like to see the no fault crap done away with. That's a total money grab for insurance companies.

[Kelisis]

I just got my insurance renewal and my premium decreased by about $100.00 over last year. I'm now paying $1,630.00 for business and pleasure on a 2004 Honda Accord EX-V6 coupe in the GTA.

I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies but to be fair, Toronto is by far the largest city in Canada with more cars on the road than anywhere else. It stands to reason therefore that the odds of a collision are greater in Toronto than in any other city and thereby pose a higher risk for the insurance companies.

Higher risk = higher premium.

[glitch]

I just got my insurance renewal and my premium decreased by about $100.00 over last year. I'm now paying $1,630.00 for business and pleasure on a 2004 Honda Accord EX-V6 coupe in the GTA.

I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies but to be fair, Toronto is by far the largest city in Canada with more cars on the road than anywhere else. It stands to reason therefore that the odds of a collision are greater in Toronto than in any other city and thereby pose a higher risk for the insurance companies.

Higher risk = higher premium.

You work for an insurance company don't you?

[Kelisis]

You work for an insurance company don't you?
Nope

[rcdraft]

My car insurance $879 in 2001.
My car insurance $1800 in 2005.

[short circuit]

I just got my insurance renewal and my premium decreased by about $100.00 over last year. I'm now paying $1,630.00 for business and pleasure on a 2004 Honda Accord EX-V6 coupe in the GTA.

I'm not an apologist for the insurance companies but to be fair, Toronto is by far the largest city in Canada with more cars on the road than anywhere else. It stands to reason therefore that the odds of a collision are greater in Toronto than in any other city and thereby pose a higher risk for the insurance companies.

Higher risk = higher premium.

That's a bunch of bull. It's because insurance in B.C. is government run, and in Ontario it's private. What the insurance companies are telling us is more Bull.

[Kelisis]

That's a bunch of bull. It's because insurance in B.C. is government run, and in Ontario it's private. What the insurance companies are telling us is more Bull.
If we had a government run program here in Ontario, the risks would not change. This is simply based on statistical odds and actuarial reality. The higher the number of cars on the road, the greater the chance of a collision thus the higher the risk - pure and simple.

Government plans are not a panacea contrary to what many people think. Even Bob Rae realized that when he vowed to bring it in, and then, after careful actuarial analysis, realized it couldn't be done. Probably the only sensible decision he ever made during his tenure as Premier.

Government-run plans keep premiums down by simply not covering things that a private insurer might cover.

I have friends who live in Manitoba (where they have a government-run plan) and you should hear the horror stories some of them went through just for minor fender-benders :eek:

[short circuit]

If we had a government run program here in Ontario, the risks would not change. This is simply based on statistical odds and actuarial reality. The higher the number of cars on the road, the greater the chance of a collision thus the higher the risk - pure and simple.

Government plans are not a panacea contrary to what many people think. Even Bob Rae realized that when he vowed to bring it in, and then, after careful actuarial analysis, realized it couldn't be done. Probably the only sensible decision he ever made during his tenure as Premier.

Government-run plans keep premiums down by simply not covering things that a private insurer might cover.

I have friends who live in Manitoba (where they have a government-run plan) and you should hear the horror stories some of them went through just for minor fender-benders :eek:


The reason that Bob Rae did not go for Public insurance was that the American Insurance companies at the time threatened to sue the Ontario Government for 3 billion dollars because they said that was the amount of revenue they would lose if it happened and they were using the NAFTA as their defence. Also I would buy your argument about the traffic in Toronto, but according to the report,which I will post at the end, cities like Thunder Bay, Sault St. Marie, Sudbury, etc are paying "Extraordinary High Rates". And what are the Provinces with the lowest rates you might ask? B.C. Sask, Manitiba, Quebec and the City of Winnepeg was the lowest. I believe that these places all have puplic insurance. So I don't buy the private insurance companies argument.

http://www.consumer.ca/1696

[Kelisis]

The reason that Bob Rae did not go for Public insurance was that the American Insurance companies at the time threatened to sue the Ontario Government for 3 billion dollars because they said that was the amount of revenue they would lose if it happened and they were using the NAFTA as their defence.
Hmmm...Do you have proof of this? - I was around when Buffoon Bob was in power and the reason he stated he couldn't do it was because it was just too expensive and would not have been revenue neutral.

Also I would buy your argument about the traffic in Toronto, but according to the report,which I will post at the end, cities like Thunder Bay, Sault St. Marie, Sudbury, etc are paying "Extraordinary High Rates".
What are those so-called 'extraordinary high rates' exactly?? - you need to quantify that, and just what was the driver sample used? - was it those drivers that deserve higher rates because of their horrendous driving records? - did the report compare 'apples to apples'? - I'd like to see their indepth statistical and actuarial samples.

And what are the Provinces with the lowest rates you might ask? B.C. Sask, Manitiba, Quebec and the City of Winnepeg was the lowest. I believe that these places all have puplic insurance. So I don't buy the private insurance companies argument.
All those provinces are smaller in population than Ontario, with fewer cars on the road.

[frostyone]

".Do you have proof of this? "

Surprised me as well.
Appears to be true.

From the insurance bureau website ( or why public insurance is very , very bad):

". In Ontario, ..NAFTA would require the government to provide compensation for nationalizing the industry. This is estimated to cost approximately $9 billion."
http://www.ibc.ca/home_on_reality.asp

"lack of clarity has already resulted in some questionable arguments under the NAFTA rule prohibiting expropriations. Third party investors from the United States invoked the clause in 1993 to help subvert the implementation of Ontario's public auto insurance plan. "

Best source is legal opinion written for Atlantic Canada when they wanted to go with public insurance:
McCarthy Tétrault
Memorandum

"We have identified certain provisions within GATS, NAFTA, and Canada’s FIPAs which raise significant concerns with respect to the consistency of a public automobile insurance system with Canada’s obligations "

"in 1991, the U.S. Trade Representative suggested that the introduction in Ontario of a public insurance system that would replace the system run by private companies would be tantamount to expropriation under Article 1605 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. Ultimately, the Ontario Government decided not to create a publicly-owned automobile insurance system, however, it is unclear on what basis this decision was made."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:NyJmO2faPD4J:www.cap-cpma.ca/images/worddocuments/Memo%2520re%2520International%2520Trade.doc+ontari o+public+insurance+nafta&hl=en

[short circuit]

Hmmm...Do you have proof of this? - I was around when Buffoon Bob was in power and the reason he stated he couldn't do it was because it was just too expensive and would not have been revenue neutral.

What are those so-called 'extraordinary high rates' exactly?? - you need to quantify that, and just what was the driver sample used? - was it those drivers that deserve higher rates because of their horrendous driving records? - did the report compare 'apples to apples'? - I'd like to see their indepth statistical and actuarial samples.

All those provinces are smaller in population than Ontario, with fewer cars on the road.
I will do my best to find proof on the first point
The study Methodology is explained in the report, check 3.0 Key Findings
The report states that they are comparing the same driver, it also explains it in Key Findings.

[short circuit]

I believe Frosty One found what I was looking for re NAFTA and insurance. Thanks

[Limey32]

My car insurance $879 in 2001.
My car insurance $1800 in 2005.


That is about right. In 2001 I paid $69 a month, and now my rate for a similar vechicle is $160 a month, with no tickets or accidents since 1990. You figure it out.

[short circuit]

".Do you have proof of this? "

Surprised me as well.
Appears to be true.

From the insurance bureau website ( or why public insurance is very , very bad):

". In Ontario, ..NAFTA would require the government to provide compensation for nationalizing the industry. This is estimated to cost approximately $9 billion."
http://www.ibc.ca/home_on_reality.asp

"lack of clarity has already resulted in some questionable arguments under the NAFTA rule prohibiting expropriations. Third party investors from the United States invoked the clause in 1993 to help subvert the implementation of Ontario's public auto insurance plan. "

Best source is legal opinion written for Atlantic Canada when they wanted to go with public insurance:
McCarthy Tétrault
Memorandum

"We have identified certain provisions within GATS, NAFTA, and Canada’s FIPAs which raise significant concerns with respect to the consistency of a public automobile insurance system with Canada’s obligations "

"in 1991, the U.S. Trade Representative suggested that the introduction in Ontario of a public insurance system that would replace the system run by private companies would be tantamount to expropriation under Article 1605 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. Ultimately, the Ontario Government decided not to create a publicly-owned automobile insurance system, however, it is unclear on what basis this decision was made."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:NyJmO2faPD4J:www.cap-cpma.ca/images/worddocuments/Memo%2520re%2520International%2520Trade.doc+ontari o+public+insurance+nafta&hl=en

You can thank Brian Baloney, sorry Mulrooney for that one.

[Kelisis]

I believe Frosty One found what I was looking for re NAFTA and insurance. Thanks
The NAFTA argument doesn't wash. If the U.S. NAFTA negotiators were concerned about it then, they would have asked Manitoba (and any other province with a public plan at the time) to do away with their public plan as a condition to sign on. They didn't do that. Maybe Rae was handed a golden scapegoat excuse he could politically use at the time, but I've seen him interviewed many many times, after he was long out of office, and he stated clearly that, after extensive research and consultation at the time, he realized it wouldn't work in Ontario.

Again, the truth of the matter is simply mathematics. Ontario could never have run a revenue neutral insurance plan. It would have sunk the province into further debt.

[short circuit]

The NAFTA argument doesn't wash. If the U.S. NAFTA negotiators were concerned about it then, they would have asked Manitoba (and any other province with a public plan at the time) to do away with their public plan as a condition to sign on. They didn't do that. Maybe Rae was handed a golden scapegoat excuse he could politically use at the time, but I've seen him interviewed many many times, after he was long out of office, and he stated clearly that, after extensive research and consultation at the time, he realized it wouldn't work in Ontario.

Again, the truth of the matter is simply mathematics. Ontario could never have run a revenue neutral insurance plan. It would have sunk the province into further debt.

In was not in the NAFTA agreement . If that was the case then all puplic owned institutions would have been affected. Hydro, Health, works. Etc. Not even the conservatives would have agreed to that

[Mischief007]

We needed a study to figure that out??? Looks like more money was wasted that could have gone for better things.

But anyways, I'm actually in the process of switching insurance companies. Going from $170/month down to $128/month.

[eddyk]

I have friends who live in Manitoba (where they have a government-run plan) and you should hear the horror stories some of them went through just for minor fender-benders...

I have lived in Winnipeg and still have friends there, and frankly, I do not know what you are talking about.

Except for extreme right wing conservatives in the three provinces that have government run no-fault insurance, nobody there would support the idea of going back to a privately run auto insurance system.

My only complaint with the publicly run systems is that there is no incentive to be a good driver since your premiums do not soar if you have been in an accident. Asa result, good drivers end up subsidizing bad drivers.

[Neal]

"Ontario gouged by car insurance"

I for one am shocked by this revelation. It must be on account of the "Fibrels". :eri:

[Kelisis]

I have lived in Winnipeg and still have friends there, and frankly, I do not know what you are talking about.
The payouts are a lot less, and collecting on a claim is a pain in the a$$ (according to them anyway)

Except for extreme right wing conservatives in the three provinces that have government run no-fault insurance, nobody there would support the idea of going back to a privately run auto insurance system.
Nobody?? - you sure about that?

My only complaint with the publicly run systems is that there is no incentive to be a good driver since your premiums do not soar if you have been in an accident. As a result, good drivers end up subsidizing bad drivers.
And therein lies the best argument against a publicly run system. I've been driving for over 30 years and have an excellent driving record and I'll be damned if I'm going to subsidize those irresponsible a**hole drivers out there.

Like anything else, you need to shop around for insurance. There is no question that there is a huge variance between companies. I shop around every year and I've seen it. The problem is that a lot of folks just blindly renew with their same insurer / broker year after year without shopping around and then b*tch about their premiums when they go up.

[BillD]

There is no reason, in a publically run system for bad drivers to have the same rates as good drivers. So there goes the argument against it. Everytime I have shopped around, I have found that the only way to get cheaper rates, was to take less.To get the same coverage, there is little difference between companies in my experience. As it is now, the good drivers are still subsidizing the bad.

[Kelisis]

There is no reason, in a publically run system for bad drivers to have the same rates as good drivers. So there goes the argument against it. Everytime I have shopped around, I have found that the only way to get cheaper rates, was to take less.To get the same coverage, there is little difference between companies in my experience. As it is now, the good drivers are still subsidizing the bad.
Public systems generally pay out less on claims BillD. That's the only way they can keep premiums down. It's simple actuarial mathematics. As far as rate comparisons - when I have shopped around, I have often found a wide disparity in premiums (as much as $500.00 / year) between companies for my particular situation / 'risk' profile.