law about lowering the car

[Flagrum_3]

It's all actuarial data. The 20 year old car with 400 hp is most likely babied and driving hardly at all. Today's ricer cars are daily drivers clocking tens of thousands more clicks a year. Which is more likely to get into an accident?

And you ALWAYS still have Facility to fall on if you get cancelled. Would you rather your insurance company just charge you Facility rates?

First of all Actuarial Data can and no doubt is manipulated by all Insurance Companies and dare I say our trusted government organizations! (FARSE)

...What ever happened to a person's personal driving record as the main body of your Insurance coverage in that Acturarial data??? ...The last few posts here basically repeated what I have been trying to say, in that I decide to mod my vehicle, these mods in no way make me or my vehicle any more dangerous or more likely to get into an accident, then if I would have bought a Speed 3, actually far less I would think, seeing as I have half the power, yet the Insurance companies can ignore my 30 year (clean) driving history and also the mechanics of it all, and refuse to insure me under normal insurance, by placing me in Facilities....Sorry it may be the way it is, but there is definitely something wrong with the whole set-up...Its a Big Cash Cow thats all it is, and like I said before, it is not regulated in the sense that the FARSE group donnot really control anything, they are just there for show....The main point here is modding my vehicle (moderately) should not in any way put me in that position, my personal driving history should be the main stipulation on my insurance, not what I've done to my car.

Also back to some contract discussion, let me explain something to you about contract law, in the same way that I must make sure I have read and understood the contract completely before I've signed, it is also the Insurance Companies obligation by contract law to list All pertinent information and stipulations on said contract.otherwise the contract is not binding, meaning I should not be concerned nor should I have to contact my Insurance Company to otherwise find out about any stipulations that have not been listed or mentioned in the contract, because basically they are not legal or binding.



_3


.

[Skarbro]

All the complaining in the world on here won't change a thing. Insurance companies have filed rules. If you want to complain about it or obtain a copy of your company's filed rules, then why don't you give FSCO a call?

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/ab...nformation.asp

And again, you still have Facility Association for insurance. If you really want to mod the crap out of your newer car, then you can always get insurance through them.

[whiteomega]

i'm not complaining about the policies of insurance companies, i would just like some clarification on those policies (like why factory cars can be insured, but as the TD person told me, if it doesn't come from the factory, it can't be insured [which is foolish because it means anything you buy from the dealership, like OEM bodykits becomes "uninsurable" given the above generalization])

does the FSCO have those justifications? i'm under the impression they don't, from what's been said here.

[Wild Weasel]

As I said earlier... the insurance companies can't be bothered to evaluate the modifications to determine whether they're done properly or how they affect the risk of insuring them. It's easier for them to just wash their hands of the whole thing.

It's easy enough to justify. Since there's no way to prove that what you've done isn't unsafe somehow, they can easily deny it.

Purely cosmetic things are covered. You shouldn't have any issues there. It's things that affect performance and handling that throw up the red flags.

How does the insurance company know that the intake you installed won't cause an engine fire? How do they know that lowering your car by an inch won't throw off the handling and toss you off the road? They don't, and can't be bothered to find out.

[whiteomega]

true that, but then what's the difference between buying a mazdaspeed3, and a mazda3 with a dealer "performance package" that includes all the mazda3 mazdaspeed accessories? i could understand if they were not OEM parts, but the mazdaspeed parts are OEM, just branded with mazda's own race engineering division.

as an example, how does the Mazda RX-8 with performance package (sold last year by mazda dealers) differ from a normal Mazda RX-8, upgraded with the Mazdaspeed CAI? It's the same car, the same "modification", so shouldn't the former be disallowed by insurance, just as the latter is?

Edited for clarity: assume the CAI in the latter case is installed at purchase time, but is not part of any package.

[Skarbro]

Just because Mazda makes and sells it, it doesn't make it insurable.

Canadian tire sells smoked and coloured licence plate covers, but those are very illegal in Ontario.

[whiteomega]

Just because Mazda makes and sells it, it doesn't make it insurable.

Canadian tire sells smoked and coloured licence plate covers, but those are very illegal in Ontario.

fair enough. that's an (admitedly bad) assumption on my part. so what happens if someone bought an RX-8 with performance package, and has a at-fault claim with insurance? i assume they'll need to present the bill of sale proving the package came with the car?

[Skarbro]

Yeah. And to be honest, there are many insurance companies who would cover it nevertheless. This is a grey area. It all depends on your insurance company and how crusty your adjuster is.

[Wild Weasel]

If you buy the car with the accessories included, they'll be on the bill of sale. That yellow sheet you get when you buy the car has all the options and accessories listed on it. That's full disclosure and if the insurance company doesn't throw any red flags right off the bat, then all should be well. Just about all insurance companies will be fine with that.

Of course, those same companies will give you the boot if you go and put all that stuff on yourself the very next day. Go figure.

[Noisy Crow]

If you buy the car with the accessories included, they'll be on the bill of sale. That yellow sheet you get when you buy the car has all the options and accessories listed on it. That's full disclosure and if the insurance company doesn't throw any red flags right off the bat, then all should be well. Just about all insurance companies will be fine with that.

Of course, those same companies will give you the boot if you go and put all that stuff on yourself the very next day. Go figure.

So what your are saying is.... I should a have had MoT throw on the full MS suspension and the MS CAI when I bought my car!

[whiteomega]

that's exactly what he's saying....that still assumes those items do not raise any red flags for insurance though.

[Wild Weasel]

Yeah, it's certainly no guarantee. I mean... how is that any different from buying a used car with the same mods on it?

I'm just saying there's a better shot of having it covered from the start. Even then, you could have issues when changing companies and what not.

The bottom line is that insurance companies don't want to insure modified cars.

[Flagrum_3]

All the complaining in the world on here won't change a thing. Insurance companies have filed rules. If you want to complain about it or obtain a copy of your company's filed rules, then why don't you give FSCO a call?

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/ab...nformation.asp

And again, you still have Facility Association for insurance. If you really want to mod the crap out of your newer car, then you can always get insurance through them.

I'm not so much complaining as trying to explain whats wrong with the whole Car Insurance Scam going on in Canada! I have written to my MP and will continue to write until I can get some answers, and I would hope more people would also!....but so far I've been ignored.
You keep going to the Facilities coverage in all your posts ignoring the points I have made, so here I go again and I'll try to be clear; Seeing as it is Law to have Vehicle Insurance coverage (in Ontario), Insurance companies should be by law ,obligated to cover you, with no excuse of releasing you from coverage other than your driving history(or health reasons).No other reason should surfice and Insurance companies should have to take the risk, not just pass insurees off to facilities....Was the Insurance law put in place to protect the people or to protect the Insurance Companies? ...that seems to me to be the main question and the problem.Insurance Companies are a business and like all business's comes risk, but it seems to me that that fact as been overlooked by our said Government agency in charge of controlling the Insurance Companies, hense they allow these companies to change policies only with the intent of saving said companies money (or should I say to protect profits)....Saying that I or my vehicle are of higher risk because I've lowered it, without any data to back that up seems to be a little scrupulous to me.

Maybe if more people would write to thier MPs and to the FSCO complaining of such things, maybe just maybe, they might be forced to stop overlooking these scrupulous behaviors and start actually monitoring and questioning Insurance Company policies and protecting us law abiding, tax paying citizens from them.

Rant over,



_3


.

[Skarbro]

I'm not so much complaining as trying to explain whats wrong with the whole Car Insurance Scam going on in Canada! I have written to my MP and will continue to write until I can get some answers, and I would hope more people would also!....but so far I've been ignored.
You keep going to the Facilities coverage in all your posts ignoring the points I have made, so here I go again and I'll try to be clear; Seeing as it is Law to have Vehicle Insurance coverage (in Ontario), Insurance companies should be by law ,obligated to cover you, with no excuse of releasing you from coverage other than your driving history(or health reasons).No other reason should surfice and Insurance companies should have to take the risk, not just pass insurees off to facilities....Was the Insurance law put in place to protect the people or to protect the Insurance Companies? ...that seems to me to be the main question and the problem.Insurance Companies are a business and like all business's comes risk, but it seems to me that that fact as been overlooked by our said Government agency in charge of controlling the Insurance Companies, hense they allow these companies to change policies only with the intent of saving said companies money (or should I say to protect profits)....Saying that I or my vehicle are of higher risk because I've lowered it, without any data to back that up seems to be a little scrupulous to me.

Maybe if more people would write to thier MPs and to the FSCO complaining of such things, maybe just maybe, they might be forced to stop overlooking these scrupulous behaviors and start actually monitoring and questioning Insurance Company policies and protecting us law abiding, tax paying citizens from them.

Rant over,



_3


.

Insurance companies ARE by law obligated to covering you as you put it. Facility Association is a pool of all the Ontario insurance companies for last resort insurance. All the insurance companies pay for your claims when you are in Facility. When they cancel your insurance and send you off to Facility, they just shifting the risk to all the other companies too.

I'm not trying to defend the insurance companies' rules. Just clarifying. Personally, insurability is the main reason I haven't lowered my car or thrown in an aftermarket intake. (well that and I have a kid now and my money goes towards him!)

[whiteomega]

i remember reading somewhere (i can't find the link offhand right now) that it was the insurance industry in Ontario that was obligated to provide insurance; not any one company.

this is why Facility exists; it's insurance for people whom normal companies consider uninsurable. since Facility insures high-risk individuals, the premiums are higher (as you would expect...)

[Skarbro]

i remember reading somewhere (i can't find the link offhand right now) that it was the insurance industry in Ontario that was obligated to provide insurance; not any one company.

this is why Facility exists; it's insurance for people whom normal companies consider uninsurable. since Facility insures high-risk individuals, the premiums are higher (as you would expect...)

Yup you hit the nail on the head.

Although the term uninsurable is a little extreme. More like the companies feel that the risk is too great to take on. Everything is insurable for the right price.

BTW, if private insurance companies were forced to insure everyone that walked through their door with no power to cancel, then you can damn well expect them to be charging high Facility-like rates for all those people who would otherwise be in Facility.

[Flagrum_3]

Yup you hit the nail on the head.

Although the term uninsurable is a little extreme. More like the companies feel that the risk is too great to take on. Everything is insurable for the right price.

BTW, if private insurance companies were forced to insure everyone that walked through their door with no power to cancel, then you can damn well expect them to be charging high Facility-like rates for all those people who would otherwise be in Facility.

Did you guys try reading my post even with a morsal of attention! Its like talking to a wall!


_3


.

[Wild Weasel]

After a couple pages of posts, I figured it out. We're explaining to you why things are the way they are, but that's not what you're asking.

In fact, you're not really asking for any answers, right? You're just giving commentary on the state of the industry and how they're essentially screwing us for no fair reason.

In that case, we're in agreement.

[Flagrum_3]

After a couple pages of posts, I figured it out. We're explaining to you why things are the way they are, but that's not what you're asking.

In fact, you're not really asking for any answers, right? You're just giving commentary on the state of the industry and how they're essentially screwing us for no fair reason.

In that case, we're in agreement.

Bingo!!, I don't think I need explaining on how Insurance works, I know how it works (no conceit intended), I'm hoping to make people aware (if not already) that they are getting hosed in all kinds of ways by these Insurance companies and also by our government agencies, (which supposedly exist to protect us from such companies) and hoping that enough people will get mad enough to start writing thier MPs etc; not just saying; 'oh thats the way it is, nothing we can do about it'.....Like sheep to the slaughter.



_3


.

[Wild Weasel]

Unfortunately, we're too small a market for any of them to care about and the general public just views us as punk street racers out to kill everyone.

[Skarbro]

Writing to your MP will no doubt do nothing. Many have tried over the years. They've all failed.

[whiteomega]

Writing to your MP will no doubt do nothing. Many have tried over the years. They've all failed.

you never know...it might actually work....at least until the industry goes "umm...no, not letting that happen" and donates a bunch of money to your MP to stop anything you might try...

[RX9]

did MPs drive mod cars? ( winter tire....)

[Wild Weasel]

There was some senator or other high-ranking gov't official in California (not Arnold) who just recently got car-jacked and was in the news. It was rollin' on DUBS or something.

[RX9]

There was some senator or other high-ranking gov't official in California (not Arnold) who just recently got car-jacked and was in the news. It was rollin' on DUBS or something.

so they do.