No I didn't.

OK not a "Big" deal but a deal. This is the point that people seem to be missing with our "no fault" system. The at "fault" driver's rates DO go up when they have an accident. They don't make up their shortfalls by increasing everybody's rates (although rates do of course increase but so do at fault systems) the higher risk drivers pay the increases. The incentive to not have accidents is exactly the same as an at fault system here.

They do here and in most places with a no fault scheme. As I said, the insurer is prohibited by law from increasing the claimant's rates if he wasn't at fault. If the at fault driver is insured with another company, the claimant's insurer has no way to recoup their claims expense from him either.

What the claimant's insurer can do instead under state law is aggregate all their claims expenses in their annual data call submitted to the state, then use that as support to petition the department of insurance for rate increases across the board. The state rarely denies a rate increase, again because of economics. DFS is afraid that denying rate increases will cause insurers to leave Florida, restrict the kinds of policies they offer or deny coverage altogether for riskier drivers, which in turn has the effect of driving average rates up anyway.

If your rates went down when no fault went into effect, it wasn't because of no fault insurance. It was because there was something else holding your rates artificially high that was corrected at the same time. If they had fixed whatever that problem was while keeping the at fault system, your rates would be even lower today.

LOL I know I know! I have been trying to make the point that our "No fault" systems is different and actually works because it still assigns fault and is no fault in name only. They are two radically different systems and saying what they do in Florida (or other states) is meaningless. The no fault system we use does not push rates up no matter how much you want to believe it.

Canada sounds wild.

Sorry

Nothing to be sorry about, bud.

I was just being Canadian




https://img.memecdn.com/don-t-fuck-w..._o_1552649.jpg

Ok, I think I found the huge disconnect. I read something where in Quebec province the government pays for injury claims!?!?! Is that true???

I have no idea if it's true or not but for all intents and purposes you can basically treat Quebec as it's own thing... 'tis a strange place.

Ya I have no idea what the other provinces do. I know you guys think of Canada as one big happy family but the provinces are actually much more independent and self governing than even the individual Sates are. We can have some radical differences and Quebec is 100% guaranteed to do the polar opposite of what ever Ontario does just out of spite.


Looks like it is not the Government but the insurance board. The SAAQ is the insurance governing body.


Damn this is more fucked up than Florida!
Mandatory “No-Fault” Coverage under the Public Plan

In a vehicle collision, whether you are responsible or not, it’s the SAAQ that compensates you if you get injured. This is what is commonly called “pure no-fault”. In Québec, you can’t be sued as a result of a car collision, even if it involves a foreign visitor.


One Policy For All​

In Québec, the auto insurance policy is a standard and unique policy. Its content is authorized by the Au​torité des marchés financiers (AMF)​​. Every policyholder in Québec has the exact same contract. Your policy is therefore identical to that of your friend or neighbor.

Man...OP is fucked. Good luck on that. Just so many bad decisions and it just all hit him like a ton of bricks.

@Tcoat - Canada really IS wild.

I don't. I've been to Toronto and Ottawa. It was like being in completely different countries. I had both French and English Canadian professors in film school (we had a deal with the National Film Board of Canada), and they liked to rib each other about Quebec seceding.

I love how close their insurance board (SAAQ) is to their liquor board (SAQ) :bellyroll:

Ottawa isn't in Quebec.

Well I feel stupid.

And they said it couldn't be done!!!!!

It is close and it is very bilingual so you get half points.


You are correct in that Toronto is very different from Ottawa. The comparison is like putting NYC up against a small town in upstate NY though.

Had you just posted about what you have for coverage, then I wouldn’t care.

Cost of insurance varies and everyone views risk differently. Risk is reflected as the cost you would pay for insurance.

Take the cost of premiums out and your post stands perfectly fine on its own.

Yes the SAAQ pays for your injury. But we pay 100$ a year to have a licence and 200$ for registration of the car. If you have demerit points (tickets) the cost increase to a maximum of almost 400$.

We pay less for insurance cause we are not covered for injury, the SAAQ pays. Now I'm paying around 650$ to insure my 2 cars (around 10k km a year) cause I have no infraction or insurance claims.

We are living in a socialist state and there's nothing great about it believe me.

That's not that bad. In Florida it cost me over $1000 to bring three vehicles into the state. It would have been $1200, but I got a discount for having registered a car here 20 years ago that was still in the system.

Meh, for a "small" sum of money, which can vary, Australians are covered bu a "green slip" for up to 20 million dollars, this covers
"You, your passengers or pillion passenger
Anyone else driving or riding your vehicle
The drivers, riders and passengers of other vehicles injured by your vehicle
Other road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, injured by your vehicle
If a person dies as a result of the accident, close relatives may also be able to claim some expenses."

We also have comprehensive and third party

Comprehensive cost vary quite a bit

"A comprehensive car insurance policy provides the highest level of protection of the available types of cover in Australia. It typically covers you for damage to your vehicle and damage to other driver’s vehicles or property.

Furthermore, it covers damage caused by fire, storm, hail, and replacement costs if your vehicle is stolen. A comprehensive policy covers the cost of repairs regardless of which party is responsible for the damage. It also covers features like having a hire car while yours is at the shop getting repaired, or replacing your windshield."

There is also third party only (tpo), this only cover damage or injuries to others, also third party fire and theft, this still doesn't fix your car if you crash.

It seems that my point may have been missed in previous posts, my initial statement was how can someone be out of pocket when there is insurance that can cover all situations.

I have the "green slip and comprehensive", for a small outlay every year I am covered for everything, I would not even concider operating a car or motorbike without it.


Comprehension skills: I could be wrong, but, it seems that in Canada the government covers your "green slip", is this typical for America?

For vehicle repairs, to me it seems that you can have whatever amount of insurance you want, with the OP not having enough to cover a minor accident.

I'm just curious in the differences in how you guys insure your vehicles.

Lets leave cost out of it, my mistake was adding a cost for a product/service, I do this often with international purchases, yes, even between different financial systems in different countries.

TL:DR, insurance isn't needed, until it's needed, and when it is you better have enough coverage.

In the US, we don't have anything like your inexpensive blanket $20 million limit. That may be possible in your country, but it would be difficult in ours.

You have about 7.5% of our population, less than the state of Texas spread over an area comparable in size to the entire lower 48 states in the US. I would anticipate that generally your accident and claims rates are lower. Lower population density usually results in lower numbers of claims.

Our accident and claims rates are high enough that private insurers would balk at offering coverage that high at a price that most people could afford. If we tried to make that a government program, voters would balk at paying the increased taxes to fund it.

Additionally, I'm under the impression that Australia has a much less litigious society than we have in the US. If everyone had a $20 million liability policy, lawyers here would be involved in every single accident trying to get as close to a $20 million payout as possible. We would likely see runaway claims expenses driving the cost up beyond anything you would expect to see in your country.

I wish we could have what you describe. But it ain't gonna happen during my lifetime. A few of the less populous states like Wyoming or Alaska may be able to make it work at the state level, but then, their claims are so low they don't really need it.

Not in the US. Our motor vehicle insurance is offered by private companies.

It's also not federal. Our Constitution spells out what the federal government can do and reserves all other powers to the states. Regulation of insurance falls under those reserved powers. We have no nationwide department of insurance. (There is a federal insurance office under the Treasury Department, but they don't have any regulatory power over the states.)

Therefore each of the states and territories has its own set of motor vehicle laws, its own set of insurance regulations and its own set of intersections between the two. Each state sets its own minimums for insurance coverage. Most states require liability insurance for property and personal injury liability. Some also require uninsured motorist coverage, but not all. Some even allow you to opt out of the insurance requirements by self-insuring instead. At least one has no minimum requirement at all (although you're still liable for damage you cause under regular tort law).

Specific to this thread, in California (where OP is), the minimum required insurance for property damage is $5000 of coverage. In Florida (where I am), the minimum is $10,000. Many states require $25,000.

How much the insurance premiums cost also varies wildly depending on your risk factors. One of the major risk factors affecting price is location. In a place that has more claims expense, the risk is higher, so the insurance costs more. Florida's crappy insurance regulations encourage higher claims, so we consistently place within the top three for highest average premium in the country.

Cost.

Higher levels of coverage above the minimums certainly exist, but they cost more. Each individual has to weigh the risk of an accident against the cost to insure against it. Most people buy the state minimum and never have a problem, so the risk seems low.

When weighing payment of an extra $1000 or $2000 now against a future event with a completely ambiguous cost attached that may or may not even happen, the majority of people choose to take the risk. It's difficult to compare something that will happen ($1000 leaving your bank account) with something that probably won't happen.

Further complicating this risk analysis is that lawyers don't like to sue people for money they don't have. Liability cases are usually taken on contingency, meaning the attorney doesn't get paid unless you get paid. If the guy you're suing doesn't have anything, you don't get paid, so your lawyer doesn't get paid. Even if the defendant does have means, he'll probably tell the court he doesn't and work out a payment plan instead, which means the lawyer's payday will be delayed or evaporate altogether if the defendant doesn't make the payments.

Lawyers don't like to take cases where they're unlikely to get paid for their work, so where they focus their attention instead is on companies and high net worth individuals. They sue insurance companies for policy minimums and beyond. They sue trucking companies. They sue rich people. If you're out to lunch on your own and drop by a branch office to pick up some paperwork on your way back to your office, they'll try to sue your employer.

They generally don't like to take cases against people like OP who have $100 in their bank accounts, unless they see that OP has spent $9K at a casino and $13K to fix his own car and therefore obviously has some source of funds other than that $100 in his account.

That focus on the deeper pockets leads to a false sense of security in which people think, "I'll buy the minimum, and if something bad does happen (which it probably won't), they won't go after me anyway because I don't have anything to take." See that attitude with OP. He thinks they can't get anything because he only has $100 in his bank account.

Depends on where in Canada you are talking. Each province has their own totally different rules. I am not going to look it up but I suppose a couple of the provinces could have government coverage but Ontario (with the largest percentage of the population) does not. I explained our Ontario system several times already but rest assured it is in no way government sponsored. It is a completely private system with laws to control it.

I can't imagine carrying the minimum allowed by state law. I can see going with a higher deductible to reduce your premium cost if you have the means to pay it when the shit hits the fan. I don't remember what the minimums are here in NY but carrying less than a typical mid level BMW or MB costs to replace is foolish and what if you tag an Aston Martin or lose it on a twisty road and take out a house? Better have enough to cover your ass or else. I do know from several experiences that we are only allowed to sue for medical expenses above what the insurance will pay, there is absolutely no opportunity to sue for anything else that the insurance company didn't pay. We also can't get reduced value coverage so if your 6 month old car gets hit and it's repairable the repairs will be performed and you will deal with the fact that your car is now worth significantly less than what you owe and when you go to sell it you better make full disclosure or you can be sued for fraud years afterward if the owner finds evidence of a previous accident.

It's definitely Easter weekend.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

it is easter weekend, but i don't really see the difference that makes ;)

Either I am losing my mind or there was a post in this thread from 7 hours before I made my wise ass comment. [emoji39]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Your state of mind might be in question but there is a test to see if your cognitive ability is intact. Go to the park and if you encounter a street mime and you have the urge to kill him/her, you are still sane. Resist the temptation to risk a life sentence and feel good about being mainstream. However, a jury of your peers would find you not guilty.

Bringing up an old thread about the importance of adequate insurance coverage will be a service to people who think they are okay. On the off chance that I T-Bone a Bugatti Beyron, I could write a check and be done with it, but you know that would not be the end. The lawyers would not stop until they get the rest. You might ask if I could pay cash for that car and own a BRZ instead, well it has something to do with being married and impulse purchases limited to less than six figures. Plenty of insurance and an umbrella policy on top of that to insulate me from the wolves. Subrogation came up in the conversation and I have an example of how that works. I was driving my company truck northbound on a street at the speed limit. A southbound Chevrolet van was closing in to the same intersection at the same rate that I was; I could estimate that we would pass each other in the middle of that intersection. What I could see that the other drive could not because of obstacles, was a roofing truck was approaching the intersection from my right and I could tell that it was going to blow that stop sign. I got on my brakes only to watch the truck and van meet in the intersection. Not pretty. An ambulance carted off the van driver. I was listed as a witness to the incident and later got called by the lawyer for the roofing company. He tried to find out if I could tell if the van driver was speeding. I saw right away where this was going. I told him unequivocally that I was traveling at no faster than the speed limit and the van matched my speed from the other direction. This is how it works here: even having the right of way, but exceeding the speed limit, the driver lessens the ability of the driver at fault to mitigate the damage by possibly stopping in time or slowing down to lessen the impact of the collision. The responsibility for the collision would be apportioned to both parties. This was not the first time that I crossed paths with that roofing truck and the driver. His glasses must have been an inch thick and I doubt that he could legally drive with vision that bad. There is another non-automotive example of how subrogation works. A long time ago, the line crew at the telephone company where I worked snagged a gas line at the street, but did not break it. The supervisor got involved and did nothing more than pass it on to the gas company who gave it a look and blew it off as found ok. The line crew went on record with the supervisor as objecting to the findings, but left it squarely with the boss. The gas line was broken at the building which was a gas station converted to a residence rented to people illegally in this country. The ground and the building was saturated with gas. One chilly autumn morning, a resident lit a stove for some heat and the whole building blew up resulting in some deaths and injuries. I was interviewed by a variety of people and had the good sense to do a Sgt. Schultz, “I know nothing.” They threw the line crew under the bus and they were fired with the manager untouched. Later the Union got the crew restored to their jobs after the details were revealed. In the end, the financial settlement was apportioned 60/40 with the gas company and the phone company. Large companies can be considered self-insured because if they do have insurance coverage, it often comes with such a high deductible that the only time the insurance coverage kicks in is for catastrophic incidents. Lots of finger pointing and you can see why you need to cover your butt with as much insurance as you can afford. When I was young and had no assets, I only had liability insurance to cover the other guy. My old cars could be totaled if you looked at them crosseyed. I could make a trip to the junkyard and be on the road in a couple of days.

in threads like this, spam posts generally get deleted, but leave the rest of the thread intact for future knowledge searchers.

but losing your mind is still in the realm of possibility!

There was a bot post. It was reported and deleted. The rest is what Sound said.