damn insurance companies!!!

[wonderings]

Well I just talked to my brother who is 24, looking at getting his first bike. He will be doing a motorcycle safety course here in SW Ontario. The bike he is looking at buy is a 1990 Suzuki Katana 600, or a 88 Kawasaki Ninja 750. I recommended the Katana myself, my cousin has one and I think its a good starter. Anywho... Insurances wants $3000 CAD a year, just liability for this bike. Thats more then the bike costs. This is crazy. Another friend, much older then myself, almost 50 years old (I am 26) bought his first bike this year, a Suzuki Boulevard 800. He is doing the course before he rides as well, his insurance was $2000 CAD. Is it just me or does it seem like insurances is trying to make it as hard as possible for any new riders to start riding? The katana is no speed demon by any means. DAMN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

sorry, just needed to vent a little.

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

No offense I am glad I live where I am at. under $500. for both of my bikes full coverage.

[2XX2]

Well, yeah.  Insurance companies suck, right up to the point they write the checks...  And of course, they never pay what you expect to be paid.

You also could say.. "Damn all those young bikers that have been in accidents and have proven and justified the rates that the damn insurance companies charge!"

It's the younger, untrained, and inexperienced riders that have accidents.  They raise the cost for everyone.

[wonderings]

No offense I am glad I live where I am at. under $500. for both of my bikes full coverage.

with prices like that I can understand being able to have more then one bike. Its unthinkable financially for me right now to insure 2 bikes. I pay $1100 CAD a year for my 919. If I was paying what you are I would have at least 3 bikes. Gotta live with just one for the time being, oh well, one is better then none.

[CBRXXBLACKBIRD]

Yes I agree it better to have one then none at all.

[windsorgreen1]

Well, yeah.  Insurance companies suck, right up to the point they write the checks...  And of course, they never pay what you expect to be paid.

You also could say.. "Damn all those young bikers that have been in accidents and have proven and justified the rates that the damn insurance companies charge!"

It's the younger, untrained, and inexperienced riders that have accidents.  They raise the cost for everyone.

This is crap. It's always been the newbies who have the most accidents but it's only been over the last couple of years that the insurance companies are trying to commit financial rape. My best riding buddy is 49yrs old, & has been riding for 30yrs. He had one accident when he was 20. No money was paid out. Progressive just quoted him $1600/yr for liability only on a new Triumph Daytona.  He only pays $400/yr full coverage for his Harley that's easily worth double the Triumph. Insurance companies suck- plain & simple. They rape you because they can. My ex used to work in the industry & she was one of them. Scum. Very few are otherwise.

ok off my soapbox now  

[dr dralion]

Wow, rates are really expensive.  

When I was 24, my then 6 year old BMW R850R cost me $330 a year for liability.  When I turned 25, it went down to $78 a year.  Now the bike it 10 years old and its $72.  It sure does suck for a newbie to pay over $3000 on a 17 year old bike.  I'm sure when I move to a larger city than St. Louis, rates will go up.

Kev

[2XX2]

This is crap. It's always been the newbies who have the most accidents but it's only been over the last couple of years that the insurance companies are trying to commit financial rape. My best riding buddy is 49yrs old, & has been riding for 30yrs. He had one accident when he was 20. No money was paid out. Progressive just quoted him $1600/yr for liability only on a new Triumph Daytona.  He only pays $400/yr full coverage for his Harley that's easily worth double the Triumph. Insurance companies suck- plain & simple. They rape you because they can. My ex used to work in the industry & she was one of them. Scum. Very few are otherwise.

ok off my soapbox now  

Gee... thanks.  I like being called scum.

And it's not crap.

Maybe the insurance companies from where you hail from are allowed to "rape" people for fun.  Yeah... right.  Where I come from, the rates have to be justified through experience.  Sportbikes end up in the parts bin for a reason.  Inexperienced people riding the roads like they were on a track.  Yes, Hardlys end up there too, but not by young guys carving up roads.  It's not all about the value of the bike.  It's about liability, and medical bills.  You obviously are an uninformed insurance consumer.  I'd suggest doing a little research before you start calling people scum.  I'm not your ex-wife.

That is all.

[Scratch33]

[Somerset]

Just find a better company. When I was looking for my first time the same thing happen to me - my auto company (while good for car insurance) quoted me some insane rates for the bike. When I asked "WTF so much?" they told me that they do not specialize in bikes and gave me the name of another company. That company (Primmum) had very decent prices.
In general insurance rates betweem ON and QC vary though, we have different laws in QC, may be this gets into play as well.

Hope this helps.

Somerset

[2XX2]

Just find a better company. When I was looking for my first time the same thing happen to me - my auto company (while good for car insurance) quoted me some insane rates for the bike. When I asked "WTF so much?" they told me that they do not specialize in bikes and gave me the name of another company. That company (Primmum) had very decent prices.
In general insurance rates betweem ON and QC vary though, we have different laws in QC, may be this gets into play as well.

Hope this helps.

Somerset

Very good advice Somerset.

And yes.... territory makes a difference, both with law and insurance rating.

[kenga]

It's the younger, untrained, and inexperienced riders that have accidents.  They raise the cost for everyone.

Uh, that's not accurate anymore, at least in USA. Sure they have a lot, but as a group the younger, untrained, inexperienced riders have been surpassed in accident rates  by:
Older, untrained, overconfident riders.
Lots of single vehicle accidents, many with alcohol as a factor.

If we're going to assign blame, we have to complain about both groups.

[2XX2]

Uh, that's not accurate anymore, at least in USA. Sure they have a lot, but as a group the younger, untrained, inexperienced riders have been surpassed in accident rates  by:
Older, untrained, overconfident riders.
Lots of single vehicle accidents, many with alcohol as a factor.

If we're going to assign blame, we have to complain about both groups.

You make a good point Kenga.    Both groups are to blame, but as far as sportbikes go... it's still the younger riders and per % of riders, it's still the younger group.  The group you refer to is the reason the cruser insurance market is seeing increases in premiums.  Since crusers are the largest percentage of bikes on the road these days, they have the greatest numbers.  But not the greatest percentage per bike.

[R1150RTMark]

 It's not all about the value of the bike.  It's about liability, and medical bills.

This is very true.  I got to see this firsthand a few years ago when sitting on the jury of a civil trial of a young MCist versus a slightly-older (but still young) cager.  Long story short - the MCist and his pack of squids came up on the back of the cager on the freeway.  The cager moved right after two bikes tailgated, and then swung right and shot past him on the right.  MCist #3 - our unfortunate plaintiff - crashed into the rear bumper of the cage when he couldn't execute that same boneheaded manuever before the car got (legally) into the righthand lane.

So what does our poor, hapless young rider do?  Takes the advice of an ambulance-chaser lawyer who got ahold of him just after being released from the hospital and sues the cager - even though the rider himself caused the crash.  He sued for medical bills and lost wages - a total of around $15k.  He got nothing, but it probably cost him nothing other than a lost bike.  I'm reasonably sure the ambulance-chaser was working on a percentage basis with no retainer.  The cage had no damage other than a tire rub mark on the back bumper - so he didn't even have to pay for that.  I'm guessing they thought the cager's insurnace company would settle for 'something' prior to it going to trial.  Wrong.

Meanwhile, the cager's insurance company had to go through the entire process of preparing for, and executing, a court trial.  And rightly so - they were clearly in the right.  I'm sure it cost them thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and court costs.  I have no idea if they ever counter-sued to get their fees back.

But does anyone think this kind of stuff goes unnoticed by the insurance companies when they set up their actuary tables for MC riders?

[Kootenanny]

Progressive just quoted him $1600/yr for liability only on a new Triumph Daytona.  He only pays $400/yr full coverage for his Harley that's easily worth double the Triumph.

When I was 24, my then 6 year old BMW R850R cost me $330 a year for liability.  When I turned 25, it went down to $78 a year.  Now the bike it 10 years old and its $72.

I don't think liability rates have anything to do with the age or value of the bike, although I guess in some places the bike "style"--sportbike, cruiser, etc--may play a role.  Where I live, liability premiums are based solely on displacement (which means a Harley rider is always gonna pay more than a 600RR rider).

Comprehensive and collision premiums are different...

Here in BC, we are required by law to have liability insurance, and there is only one place to buy it--the government-run Insurance Corp.  We always gripe about the rates ($78 per year? try $78+ per month) but compared to Ontario and Quebec, our rates look pretty good.  Here, at least everyone gets shafted the same...

[JoelCool]

Well I just bought a '96 Ninja 250 for cheap.  Liability insurance is $140 for a year.

My '05 R1 is just under $700 / year for full coverage.

Insurance is a business, just like all the other businesses, the only reason they show up for work and provide the service they do is to make money.  Since most people don't have enough money stashed to eliminate the requirement for insurance, we have to pay the rates.  Just read Kootenanny's post - here in California, if you can prove you have enough cash available, you don't have to carry liability.

That's my $.02 - keep the change.

[phoenix]

Insurance is a business, just like all the other businesses, the only reason they show up for work and provide the service they do is to make money.

It's a business, yes, but most states require you to have insurance before your bike can be licensed. So at times, it certainly looks like insurance companies can exploit the situation.

[R1150RTMark]

It's a business, yes, but most states require you to have insurance before your bike can be licensed. So at times, it certainly looks like insurance companies can exploit the situation.

This MIGHT not be entirely true - technically.  Here in OH, we have to sign a 'Proof of financial responsibility' form to license any vehicle.  I think there are bond amounts in the six-figure range.

Soooooo, if one has a hundred thou or so sitting in a bank somewhere, they could probably get away without buying insurance.

And I intend to do just that - right after I win the lottery.  

[cbsnbiker]

One question that hasn't been asked in this thread: why are rates in Canada, or at least that province, different from what's commonly available in the U.S.?

[Choicecut]

Wow some of the rates people are getting seem outrageous! Have you guys tried Progressive Insurance? I am only 28 and my wife is only 25, we are both insured to ride all three of our bikes and it's only 220/yr.

[windsorgreen1]

Gee... thanks.  I like being called scum.

And it's not crap.

Maybe the insurance companies from where you hail from are allowed to "rape" people for fun.  Yeah... right.  Where I come from, the rates have to be justified through experience.  Sportbikes end up in the parts bin for a reason.  Inexperienced people riding the roads like they were on a track.  Yes, Hardlys end up there too, but not by young guys carving up roads.  It's not all about the value of the bike.  It's about liability, and medical bills.  You obviously are an uninformed insurance consumer.  I'd suggest doing a little research before you start calling people scum.  I'm not your ex-wife.
That is all.

Maybe it's that you have low self-esteem. You could be one of the few who aren't scum but since you thanked me ..... , but you're right- I shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush.

Yes it is crap. Another instance my best friend is in the military. One of his military buddies bought a 2004 cbr1000rr as his first bike (dumb) .When Progressive won't even touch a Honda CBR1000RR for under 3 grand a yr for a new 36yr old rider with no prior accident or tickets on his record ( and he had to call to get that quote because progressive didn't have it listed on the website) but State Farm covers the same bike, full coverage, for $1000 a year - that my boy IS crap.

[bluedogok]

One thing that irritates me is the fact that you have to insure each bike separately when you can only be riding one of them. I guess it would make too much sense to base insurance on the rider/overall value than the bike much like small dealer insurance coverage works.

[Hickey]

One question that hasn't been asked in this thread: why are rates in Canada, or at least that province, different from what's commonly available in the U.S.?

I've got no idea, but in these kinds of threads I've noticed that our Canadian friends are paying at least twice what one might expect in a high rate area of America.  If American insurance companies can insure bikes at a profit here in the US at our prices, then why can't the Canadian insurance companies turn a profit at a lower rate than they charge now?  Or are they really raping their customers up there?  Or is there some kind of government imposed tax on insurance up there that we don't have?

[dr dralion]

I don't think liability rates have anything to do with the age or value of the bike, although I guess in some places the bike "style"--sportbike, cruiser, etc--may play a role.  Where I live, liability premiums are based solely on displacement (which means a Harley rider is always gonna pay more than a 600RR rider).

My bike, address, driving record, etc. didn't change but my age did and therefore I can attest that liability does have something to do with age.  Being in the 18-24 year old male cagetory costs alot in insurance.  Liability has to do with the chance I'm going to damage someone else's vehicle or property.  And apparently being younger makes for a greater chance that'll happen.
Kev

[Global Rider]

Is it just me or does it seem like insurances is trying to make it as hard as possible for any new riders to start riding? DAMN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

sorry, just needed to vent a little.

Fully understandable...the venting part.

Insurance is effed in Ontario and if you want to get right down to it, fraudulent. The reason we pay so much is due to accident benefits which pays for your expenses that OHIP doesn't pay for and for loss of income, etc.

You want to hear the fraudulent part of it...they don't have to pay you if you are covered through your workplace (as I am)...yet you are forced to pay the premiums. Same for seniors who receive a monthly penison payment.

So in the US I can sue for $10M but pay nothing in insurance premiums. In Canada you can't sue for anything but get reamed by the insurance companies. Makes sense ehhh?

[R1150RTMark]

In addition to age, marital status for a young male has a lot to do with rates here in Ohio.  Wanna lower your insurance rates a TON if you're under 25?  Get married!  

[CLAY]

One question that hasn't been asked in this thread: why are rates in Canada, or at least that province, different from what's commonly available in the U.S.?

Borderline Socialism and governmental healthcare?

  Just a thought...

[2XX2]

Maybe it's that you have low self-esteem. You could be one of the few who aren't scum but since you thanked me ..... , but you're right- I shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush.

Yes it is crap. Another instance my best friend is in the military. One of his military buddies bought a 2004 cbr1000rr as his first bike (dumb) .When Progressive won't even touch a Honda CBR1000RR for under 3 grand a yr for a new 36yr old rider with no prior accident or tickets on his record ( and he had to call to get that quote because progressive didn't have it listed on the website) but State Farm covers the same bike, full coverage, for $1000 a year - that my boy IS crap.

Nope... No "Low self-esteem" here.  I'm a very good agent, and believe that insurance can be a worthy industry.  Yes.. there are some that look to take advantage of certain situations, but that happens in everything.  Every business.

What I hate is uninformed people running off their mouth stating exactly what you are saying.  Obviously, you know nothing about how the industry works, so quit yakking.  You're doing nothing to inform people about what they really need.  Which is to understand the truth.

NO!!!!  It is not crap.  Here's the deal.  

First, each company can decide if it wants to even sell insurance to motorcyclists.  Some do, some don't... Those that do may place restrictions on what they sell.  That is their choice.  Nobody HAS to sell you insurance.  Companies are in the business to make money, not make sure YOU get the lowest rate possible.  That's your job.  Shop around for the best rate in your area.

Second.  Each company has it's own "experience" records with certain rider types, bikes, and areas.  They set rates based on this experience.... the experience they have seen with previous policies they have written to that group.  Obviously, some companies have different experiences with the different groups.  Therefore the difference in rates between companies.  In my part of the world, this is all supervised by our State Insurance Department.  The insurance department only allows the setting of rates based on "experience" records.

Insurance companies aren't there just to screw you.

In closing.... AGAIN... educate yourself before you mouth off.

 

[dezXrider]

It pays to check rates before buying the bike some are higher than others, I checked on the XX and Busa before I bought and the XX was way lower so that made my choice easier, and the Busa seemed kinda ugly. Some Insurance companies allso like to see you married, owning a home, using the bike for pleasure (touring) less than 7k miles a year, have completed the MC driving course and a AMA member. My XX is $75 a year for the min required coverage, it is only $15 more than my 1990 CBR1000F was. I still prefer Fl. no insurance necessary, I had 4 or 5 bikes at a time and would have had more but there was limited space in the dining room, tags were only $20 and no emmissions test.

[Scoop]

Insurance is effed in Ontario and if you want to get right down to it, fraudulent. The reason we pay so much is due to accident benefits which pays for your expenses that OHIP doesn't pay for and for loss of income, etc.

You want to hear the fraudulent part of it...they don't have to pay you if you are covered through your workplace (as I am)...yet you are forced to pay the premiums. Same for seniors who receive a monthly penison payment.

So in the US I can sue for $10M but pay nothing in insurance premiums. In Canada you can't sue for anything but get reamed by the insurance companies. Makes sense ehhh?

I am sorry 2XX2.  I have to chime in with Global Rider here against the borderline criminal practices of the insurance companies.  It costs me $14.00 per year to insure my DL1000 with Primmum.  That's not a mistake....fourteen dollars per year for liability insurance.  That's all.  Great rate yes?  But, I have to pay almost $500 per year for "accident benefits".  Term insurance that I can never collect because I have health insurance, additional insurance through work and my own personal insurance.  But, the insurance companies have managed to make that part of the Ontario Insurance Act.  Why would the government mandate useless term insurance for consumers?  Because, when the public forced the Ontario government to look at "gouging" by insurance companies, the companies responded by lowering rates and lobbying the government for the term insurance, which was made law.  According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, that is because some Canadians are otherwise under insured (quote from the IBC).  So, now when we cry foul, the government and insurance companies show us how low our rates are and that is as far as it goes.  
I may not have proof, but I am sure it is a pretty safe bet that money changed hands, favors were done.  I put that into the criminal category.

[Scoop]

But, to stop ranting and answer the original post....
Yes, shop around.  I was once with Jevco, the blackest of the black.  I switched to a few and stuck with Primmum for a long time.  They had pretty good rates overall.  I am with Riders Plus this year, they are about 60 bucks cheaper than Primmum.  

[NoDak]

I have a 1999 Triumph Adventurer ($125.00/year) and a 2005 Triumph Sprint ST ($240/year).
I'm 39, married, live in North Dakota, and have a clean record.
The company is Dairyland Insurance.

[CLAY]

Insurance companies aren't there just to screw you.

In closing.... AGAIN... educate yourself before you mouth off.

 

I agree with much of what you say- one difference though between insurance and a regular business- if we want to drive we are *required* to do business with one of you.  That's not true with other businesses.  Just pointing out an observation.

The more the goverment gets involved, the more the average Joe gets screwed.

For the record- 500 bucks for my 03 Bandit 1200S and 2- XS650's.  I'm getting a great rate- but I'm a clean record, married, experienced rider.  I'm 37 and have had my MC endorsement since I was 20 (if that makes a difference).

[2XX2]

I am sorry 2XX2.  I have to chime in with Global Rider here against the borderline criminal practices of the insurance companies.  It costs me $14.00 per year to insure my DL1000 with Primmum.  That's not a mistake....fourteen dollars per year for liability insurance.  That's all.  Great rate yes?  But, I have to pay almost $500 per year for "accident benefits".  Term insurance that I can never collect because I have health insurance, additional insurance through work and my own personal insurance.  But, the insurance companies have managed to make that part of the Ontario Insurance Act.  Why would the government mandate useless term insurance for consumers?  Because, when the public forced the Ontario government to look at "gouging" by insurance companies, the companies responded by lowering rates and lobbying the government for the term insurance, which was made law.  According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, that is because some Canadians are otherwise under insured (quote from the IBC).  So, now when we cry foul, the government and insurance companies show us how low our rates are and that is as far as it goes.  
I may not have proof, but I am sure it is a pretty safe bet that money changed hands, favors were done.  I put that into the criminal category.

Hey scoop...  that doesn't sound like abuse by the insurance companies.  That sounds like your government is screwing you.  I'm close enough to Canada (NY) that I'm pretty sure you still have an elected government.  ANY industry that is in business to make money is going to take advantage of an opportunity if it presents its self.  In your case, you are required to purchase this "accident" coverage?  That's not the insurance industry mandating that.  That's your government that has the criminal practices.  So here we go.... all the insurance industries fault... right?

My whole problem with this issue is that the opinion that "all" insurance companies (therefore everyone in the business) are out to screw everyone is just plain wrong.  It's simply not so, and hearing it repeated over and over does nobody any good.  Overall, in all the years that I have been involved, the great majority of people in insurance do the right thing.  Is there corruption in the industry?  Yes.  But, that can be said in any industry.

The key thing is to shop around for the best coverage / premium.  Find an agent that you trust, that is knowledgeable, and can keep you up on insurance trends/changes.  Educate yourself about how insurance works.  And in your case... vote!

The uninformed opinions and stories about "my buddy this", and "my buddy that" doesn't do one bit of good for anyone.

[bluedogok]

Insurance companies aren't there just to screw you.

In a way, yes they are. They mainly exist to make money for their shareholders....if they can screw some people to make a larger profit to satisfy those shareholders, most will. But they are just like almost every other public (and most private) companies out there in that respect, it is not exclusive to insurance companies.

As far as the Canadian accident insurance, lobbying (and buying of legislation) to get a bill passed by those who will profit from a compulsory rule is pretty much "screwing" those who will have to purchase it. That way they get someone else to be the public scapegoat when in fact they were the reason behind such legislation. We all know corrupt businesses and politicians exist all over the world.

You do bring up some good points, but you also have a vested interest in the subject so you are far from neutral in regards to this discussion. We can be disgusted at paying high rates just like can not like the discussion of those rates. Just because you get paid by the industry doesn't mean that we have to agree with YOUR interpretations of an industry that in your livelihood. Higher rates typically get you higher commissions, it is no different than any car salesman.

I had a crash last weekend (20-25 mph low-side), my first in 25 years on a motorcycle and almost 20 years since I had one in a car. I am not going to claim it on my insurance because I don't want the premium go up because of one accident in the past 20-25 years. I am lucky in the fact that it is not bad enough to warrant making a claim, I am just going to repair it myself. If it had been a crash that damaged the bike significantly to where I wouldn't have been able to ride it home and repair it I probably would have made a claim because then the cost would have been justified.

You ought to know by now that most of us are too old to change our minds when it comes to things like this  

[2XX2]

In a way, yes they are. They mainly exist to make money for their shareholders....if they can screw some people to make a larger profit to satisfy those shareholders, most will. But they are just like almost every other public (and most private) companies out there in that respect, it is not exclusive to insurance companies.

As far as the Canadian accident insurance, lobbying (and buying of legislation) to get a bill passed by those who will profit from a compulsory rule is pretty much "screwing" those who will have to purchase it. That way they get someone else to be the public scapegoat when in fact they were the reason behind such legislation. We all know corrupt businesses and politicians exist all over the world.

You do bring up some good points, but you also have a vested interest in the subject so you are far from neutral in regards to this discussion. We can be disgusted at paying high rates just like can not like the discussion of those rates. Just because you get paid by the industry doesn't mean that we have to agree with YOUR interpretations of an industry that in your livelihood. Higher rates typically get you higher commissions, it is no different than any car salesman.

I had a crash last weekend (20-25 mph low-side), my first in 25 years on a motorcycle and almost 20 years since I had one in a car. I am not going to claim it on my insurance because I don't want the premium go up because of one accident in the past 20-25 years. I am lucky in the fact that it is not bad enough to warrant making a claim, I am just going to repair it myself. If it had been a crash that damaged the bike significantly to where I wouldn't have been able to ride it home and repair it I probably would have made a claim because then the cost would have been justified.

You ought to know by now that most of us are too old to change our minds when it comes to things like this  

That's the point.  Too many people, for no reason, think everyone (in insurance) is out to screw them.  Had you been my insured, I would happily tell you that you should place a claim on your recent accident.  I would have placed you in a good company that allows for long term customers to "not" get beat up.  You would have had "accident forgiveness" on your first accident in a 3 year period.  therefore, no increase due to your recent mishap.  In other words, you wouldn't be screwed.

I realize that I'm an insider, and that I'm paid by the man.  But ultimately, if I don't have any customers (YOU) due to dissatisfaction, I'll be out of business.  It's pretty simple.

Bottom line... we are not all out to screw everyone.  Those that think that are just plain wrong.

[Global Rider]

In your case, you are required to purchase this "accident" coverage?  That's not the insurance industry mandating that.  That's your government that has the criminal practices.  So here we go.... all the insurance industries fault... right?

Its called "Accident Benefits". Sure, the provincial government may have implemented AB, but they don't tell the insurance companies what to charge for it. In that case, knowing full well that they (the insurance company) won't have to pay out, why aren't they charging a premium accordingly...like $10 instead of $250 or more.

You want to know how screwed up insurance is up here. If you get hit by a car crossing the street, the AB of the car owner pays out your expenses if you don't own a car. If the pedestrian getting hit owns a car and has insurance, his own insurance pays the expenses. Doesn't that make sense?

My whole problem with this issue is that the opinion that "all" insurance companies (therefore everyone in the business) are out to screw everyone is just plain wrong.  It's simply not so, and hearing it repeated over and over does nobody any good.

Just ask the residents of New Orleans. They're getting about 15 cents on the dollar for claims. They all entered and both parties agreed to a contract, an insurance policy. So why is it they have to go to court to get money from those low life insurance companies. Oh, they're quick to collect your money...just watch out when they have to pay out.

[Global Rider]

I had a crash last weekend (20-25 mph low-side), my first in 25 years on a motorcycle and almost 20 years since I had one in a car. I am not going to claim it on my insurance because I don't want the premium go up because of one accident in the past 20-25 years.

And that is exactly why I get the bare minimum in insurance. I never get collision simply because it is a big rip off. Insuracne companies do what is cheapest for "them", not what is best for you. When you have an accident, they'll write off your vehicle if it is cheaper than fixing it....and they get to keep your vehicle, sell it and further cut their loses.

And why is it my rates don't go down from year to year? The vehicle is worth less after five years.

[highside]

The katana is no speed demon by any means. DAMN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Do not blame the insurance companies for the price of liability insurance in Canada. Insurance companies are allowed to essentially run amok in the U.S. without interference and we don't pay anything like what you guys do for liability insurance. For example, i pay a whopping $78 / YEAR (that isnt for a huge amount of liability though).

[bluedogok]

And that is exactly why I get the bare minimum in insurance. I never get collision simply because it is a big rip off. Insuracne companies do what is cheapest for "them", not what is best for you. When you have an accident, they'll write off your vehicle if it is cheaper than fixing it....and they get to keep your vehicle, sell it and further cut their loses.

And why is it my rates don't go down from year to year? The vehicle is worth less after five years.

The collision only added $6.00 a month ($72.00 a year) to the overall policy for me, which is pretty reasonable overall. I consider it a "catastrophic care" type of insurance. I just busted up bodywork and already have a line on some replacement plastic from a member here for much, much less than new plastic. Replacement bodywork would be more than the deductible but I will be able to get used bodywork and painted for less than the deductible. I got lucky it wasn't that bad.

[Penforhire]

It pays to shop.  I was quoted a 4-to-1 range for the same insurance!  But it did take five or six inquiries to find the best rate.  Good payback on the time it took to call around.

[TWI]

As for any goods or services, you got to shop around.  When my GF retured to riding in '05, she called for quote on insurance and was appalled by the quote.  A few calls later she found coverage for 1/4 of the first quote.  

2XX2:  Where are you from?  You think people should be informed before forming opinions and expressing them?  That is so foreign to my experiences; we must live on different planets.  I like yours better.

[highside]

As for any goods or services, you got to shop around.  When my GF retured to riding in '05, she called for quote on insurance and was appalled by the quote.  A few calls later she found coverage for 1/4 of the first quote.  

2XX2:  Where are you from?  You think people should be informed before forming opinions and expressing them?  That is so foreign to my experiences; we must live on different planets.  I like yours better.

Here are the first two sentances that started this thread:

Well I just talked to my brother who is 24, looking at getting his first bike. He will be doing a motorcycle safety course here in SW Ontario.

[Global Rider]

The collision only added $6.00 a month ($72.00 a year) to the overall policy for me, which is pretty reasonable overall.

I wasn't talking about collision coverage. I was talking about liability and accident benefits coverage (the mandatory items) which do not cover my vehicle. Yet when I buy insurance, they ask me what type of vehicle I'm driving and how much it cost. If I am only buying liability insurance, what difference does it make what my vehicle costs, but you pay accordingly. Why, because my vehicle may cost more to fix than another in the case of someone hitting me...so how is that my problem? So if you drive an expensive car, even though you don't take any insurance related to the car itself, your premiums are high because it costs "the insurance industry" money to fix it. And again, how is that my problem exactly?

Insurance = biggest rip-off and scam going!

[highside]

I wasn't talking about collision coverage. I was talking about liability and accident benefits coverage (the mandatory items) which do not cover my vehicle. Yet when I buy insurance, they ask me what type of vehicle I'm driving and how much it cost. If I am only buying liability insurance, what difference does it make what my vehicle costs, but you pay accordingly. Why, because my vehicle may cost more to fix than another in the case of someone hitting me...so how is that my problem? So if you drive an expensive car, even though you don't take any insurance related to the car itself, your premiums are high because it costs "the insurance industry" money to fix it. And again, how is that my problem exactly?

Well, when you have a system in which the same company is liable to cover every accident that occurs then they have a good reason to discourage expensive vehicles.

Also, the price and specifics of a persons vehicle does have a statistical impact on the likelyhood of them being involved in an at-fault accident.

[TheRedOnesAreFaster]

And why is it my rates don't go down from year to year? The vehicle is worth less after five years.

The parts to fix it aren't costing less after five years.  That's why your rate doesn't go down.

[highside]

The parts to fix it aren't costing less after five years.  That's why your rate doesn't go down.

No but their maximum potential out lay has gone down significantly. No matter how much the parts cost they will never have to pay more than the market value of the vehicle, thats what it means to "total" a vehicle, so yes their financial liability on a particular vehicle does go down every year. Of course, this shouldnt impact liability insurance, but it should impact collision and comprehensive.

[TheRedOnesAreFaster]

No but their maximum potential out lay has gone down significantly. No matter how much the parts cost they will never have to pay more than the market value of the vehicle, thats what it means to "total" a vehicle, so yes their financial liability on a particular vehicle does go down every year. Of course, this shouldnt impact liability insurance, but it should impact collision and comprehensive.

That's why you should drop your comp/collision after your bike's value has dropped past a certain point.  What that point is is up to you to determine.  C/C only costing you $100 a year, and your bike's worth $2000?  Keep it forever.

But if you're riding an old bike that's worth that $2K, and you C/C is $600?  Get rid of it.  As long as you own it and the bank doesn't tell you you have to carry it.

[highside]

That's why you should drop your comp/collision after your bike's value has dropped past a certain point.  What that point is is up to you to determine.  C/C only costing you $100 a year, and your bike's worth $2000?  Keep it forever.

But if you're riding an old bike that's worth that $2K, and you C/C is $600?  Get rid of it.  As long as you own it and the bank doesn't tell you you have to carry it.

I agree completely. Personally I drop C/C if my premiums over 5 years totals more than the value of the bike that I am insuring. I don't total very many vehicles and I certainly don't total a bike every 5 years, so this means that I will always come out behind if I were to continue paying insurance at that rate on that vehicle. There is a bottom line here though. Once a bike falls below about $2000 I drop the coverage regardless simply because I would rather gamble that i won't have an accident than that I will, and $2000 is a small enough wager that I am willing to risk it, it has paid off well so far.

[Global Rider]

No but their maximum potential out lay has gone down significantly. No matter how much the parts cost they will never have to pay more than the market value of the vehicle, thats what it means to "total" a vehicle, so yes their financial liability on a particular vehicle does go down every year.

Exactly!

BTW, I've gambled for 32 years. I'm way ahead since I've been accident and insurance claim free since I've started driving. My premiums to the insurance company is free money to them, as far as I'm concerned.

I think its time to write the minister in this province another letter re the legalities of forcing me to take out insurance that I can never collect on. I think I'll bring that up on a senior's forum as well as they are all paying that premium for nothing as well since they get a regular monthly pensioner's income.

[boostforfun]

I am married, 26, and have a clean record and live in Omaha, Ne.  My busa was $650 a year when I was 24.  My ZZR is abour 500 a year now.  It will be cheaper still when I move back to Iowa.

[Scoop]

Hey scoop...  that doesn't sound like abuse by the insurance companies.  That sounds like your government is screwing you.  I'm close enough to Canada (NY) that I'm pretty sure you still have an elected government.  ANY industry that is in business to make money is going to take advantage of an opportunity if it presents its self.  In your case, you are required to purchase this "accident" coverage?  That's not the insurance industry mandating that.  That's your government that has the criminal practices.  So here we go.... all the insurance industries fault... right?

My whole problem with this issue is that the opinion that "all" insurance companies (therefore everyone in the business) are out to screw everyone is just plain wrong.  It's simply not so, and hearing it repeated over and over does nobody any good.  Overall, in all the years that I have been involved, the great majority of people in insurance do the right thing.  Is there corruption in the industry?  Yes.  But, that can be said in any industry.

The key thing is to shop around for the best coverage / premium.  Find an agent that you trust, that is knowledgeable, and can keep you up on insurance trends/changes.  Educate yourself about how insurance works.  And in your case... vote!

The uninformed opinions and stories about "my buddy this", and "my buddy that" doesn't do one bit of good for anyone.

Oh, I know the gov't is screwing me.  That goes without mention.  It's not just the insurance companies that have them in their pocket, so does most of "big business".  And I agree.  Shopping around and playing one company against another is to the consumer's advantage.  If you don't do that, then you are screwing yourself.  But, when I had to threaten Jevco to take them to court to even insure my bike (when they "blacklisted" the Katana, I compared it to not insuring red cars as they might be statistically more at fault), and when I see them quote rates like 14 bucks and then jack the term AB coverage..... I have to call them crooked.  
Time for reform is way past.  I don't claim to have all the answers, but pressure is needed for change.  I do question my politicians on this, but they are all pretty much uncaring.  But, I won't make a claim for anything, even a write off, anymore.  I can't afford to let the insurance company know that I have ever had an accident.  As far as they know, I have never dented a fender.  I understand from speaking with brokers that it is now the norm to carry minimal insurance and pay for everything out of pocket.  So, we are mandated to have to pay for a service we cannot use.  Makes no sense to me.  So, to place blame where it is due...damn the insurance companies, the government, irresponsible young drivers and anyone else I may have left out.  Still doesn't get the insurance companies off the hook.

[Bustoutbandit]

This thread has to hold a record, if not for most posts, how about most characters. What was the original point? I think it was something about the insurance companies taking advantage of a small group of dedicated and enthusiastic participants...

DUH!!  

[windsorgreen1]

 Each company has it's own "experience" records with certain rider types, bikes, and areas.  They set rates based on this experience.... the experience they have seen with previous policies they have written to that group.  Obviously, some companies have different experiences with the different groups.  Therefore the difference in rates between companies.  In my part of the world, this is all supervised by our State Insurance Department.  The insurance department only allows the setting of rates based on "experience" records.

"it's own "experience" records with ...." They use only they data they collected from their own Policy Holders ? Crap. Sorry but that's incorrect. Insurance compies broadly collect statistics from other insurance companies, gubmit agencies, and more. You see, I have worked for MetLife for the better part of the last decade. Maybe you've heard of them ? -  they are the largest insurer in United States. Ring a bell ? I deal with Customer complaints and perform the investigations to determine what or if any process breakdowns occurred. So don't tell me what I know. I understand that Insurance "Companies" aren't out to get the Customer , but companies have too little control over how their agents conduct business. Agents should be held more accountable for their individual actions. No white collar jails or Club Meds - regular prisons.

So go ahead & tell me how virtuous the insurance industry is.

[2XX2]

Obviously, I'm not going to change the opinion of anyone here.  I'm not here to start a pi$$ing contest either.  Someone always has to keep up with the Jones' on everything.

Just a few notes:  Insurance is no different form any other industry.  Corruption is everywhere.  The largest insurer in the US is AIG.  Not Metlife.  Go look it up.  Yes, insurers exchange information.  Loss information primarily.  Do they share much.  No way.  Do you really think competing companies share their internal information?  Give away trade information?  Yeah... right.

And finally.... the companies are OK, but the agents suck.  Oh... that's precious.  The companies don't have enough control of the agents?  Boy... I'm thankful I don't work for MetLife.  I work in the best interests of my customers.  I don't want any company telling me what's best for my clientele.  

All I'd like to do is educate a few that might not have heard some of this before.  Again... Find a local, knowledgeable agent and ask questions.  Shop around for a knowledgeable agent that can help you as well as for the best premiums.  Don't deal directly with the beast, I mean companies.  And... when someone starts telling you about "their buddy's" insurance problems... walk away.  Just walk away...

[Riceman]

Well I just talked to my brother who is 24, looking at getting his first bike. He will be doing a motorcycle safety course here in SW Ontario. The bike he is looking at buy is a 1990 Suzuki Katana 600, or a 88 Kawasaki Ninja 750. I recommended the Katana myself, my cousin has one and I think its a good starter. Anywho... Insurances wants $3000 CAD a year, just liability for this bike. Thats more then the bike costs. This is crazy. Another friend, much older then myself, almost 50 years old (I am 26) bought his first bike this year, a Suzuki Boulevard 800. He is doing the course before he rides as well, his insurance was $2000 CAD. Is it just me or does it seem like insurances is trying to make it as hard as possible for any new riders to start riding? The katana is no speed demon by any means. DAMN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

sorry, just needed to vent a little.

Looks to me like the govt might being useing insurance companies to end motorcycle riding in CN altogether.  Kind of like continually raising the taxes on cigarettes to get people to stop smoking.  If insurance gets to the point that only the rich can afford it...everyone else will have to stop riding.  

I know that this is probably not the intent, but one could easily look at it and think so.  Also, seems strange...Doesnt CN have socialized medicine?

[Hickey]

Doesn't CN have socialized medicine?

Sure.  But since there is no such thing as a free lunch, those medical bills have to get paid somehow.  Higher taxes, yes, but maybe there are some hidden taxes applied to motorcycle insurance carriers that are in turn passed on to the consumer (rider) that are justified (in the minds of those in power) since they believe motorcyclists are more likely to cost the medical system money.

Just a theory.

[Clark Kent]

It's a business, yes, but most states require you to have insurance before your bike can be licensed. So at times, it certainly looks like insurance companies can exploit the situation.

Sorry, but they can't do that.  Their rates have to be approved by the State or Province they are to be used in.

The Ins. companies file their rates and the data they used to justify them.  They are approved or denied baised on that data.

If you don't like the cost of the ins. you don't have to buy the bike.  

Rates are based on the "Loss histroy of that "class" of bike and then the "individual bike itself" etc.

You get what you pay for.    "THE CLASS OF RIDERS AND BIKES SET THEIR OWN RATES"

ck

[Clark Kent]

"it's own "experience" records with ...." They use only they data they collected from their own Policy Holders ? Crap. Sorry but that's incorrect. Insurance compies broadly collect statistics from other insurance companies, gubmit agencies, and more. You see, I have worked for MetLife for the better part of the last decade. Maybe you've heard of them ? -  they are the largest insurer in United States. Ring a bell ? I deal with Customer complaints and perform the investigations to determine what or if any process breakdowns occurred. So don't tell me what I know. I understand that Insurance "Companies" aren't out to get the Customer , but companies have too little control over how their agents conduct business. Agents should be held more accountable for their individual actions. No white collar jails or Club Meds - regular prisons.

So go ahead & tell me how virtuous the insurance industry is.

WOW, I LOVE THIS!  NOW IT'S THE AGENTS FAULT BECAUSE HE SOLD THE POLICY.


Why don't we put all the bike salemen in jail for selling these bikes to riders??

Why not put God in jail for allowing cancer?

WOW!  I'm going to jail!  (You guess if I'm 1.  an insurance agent. 2.  A bike salesman. 3. GOD!

If I were you, I'd go with "an insurance agent with a GOD complex"!


Now if you don't want your rates to triple, I would cast no more aspersions on insurance agents.  



CK  

[TheRedOnesAreFaster]

...Kind of like continually raising the taxes on cigarettes to get people to stop smoking...

Dude, if they wanted you to stop smoking, they'd outlaw it.  The fact is the use the health care cost argument as an excuse to raise the taxes.  And they get away with it because most people don't smoke, so the increased tax won't cost the politician any votes, so he gets to stay in office, and the government gets a big increase in revenue.

If they wanted people to stop smoking, they quit subsidizing tobacco farmers.  They don't do that, because that would cost politicians in tobacco producing states votes.

The government wants to get every possible nickel out of you it can.

Now back to the original topic....

[windsorgreen1]

WOW, I LOVE THIS!  NOW IT'S THE AGENTS FAULT BECAUSE HE SOLD THE POLICY.

Not sure where you pulled that from but I'd wash it off before the smell gets to ya.

[Clark Kent]

Not sure where you pulled that from but I'd wash it off before the smell gets to ya.

Check your own quote.    That is where the agent accusation came from.

People are allowed to have their own opinions.  I guess it wasn't the home office that cause the problems with Prudential was it?  (Plenty of blame in the insurance industry to go around to the agents AND home office staff.)

"Fox smells his own hole first" stuff.

CK  

[Scoop]

Dude, if they wanted you to stop smoking, they'd outlaw it.  The fact is the use the health care cost argument as an excuse to raise the taxes.  And they get away with it because most people don't smoke, so the increased tax won't cost the politician any votes, so he gets to stay in office, and the government gets a big increase in revenue.

If they wanted people to stop smoking, they quit subsidizing tobacco farmers.  They don't do that, because that would cost politicians in tobacco producing states votes.

The government wants to get every possible nickel out of you it can.

Now back to the original topic....

To take the topic off on a tangent again......
Rest assured, smoking will stop.  It is a long and slow process of behavioural change and some nations will lag behind others, but smoking will stop.  The government needs taxpayers who are paying taxes.  Not ones with rotted lungs wasting in hospice wards.  In countries with subsidised health care, the change will come quicker as dying smokers take a long time to expire during which time they are not paying taxes and are costing health care.  In countries without subsidised health care, the change will take longer, but it will happen.  It's just not cost efficient to disable and kill your taxpayers.  
Unless.....there is govt. sponsored smoking insurance!!!

[highside]

To take the topic off on a tangent again......
Rest assured, smoking will stop.  It is a long and slow process of behavioural change and some nations will lag behind others, but smoking will stop.  The government needs taxpayers who are paying taxes.  Not ones with rotted lungs wasting in hospice wards.  In countries with subsidised health care, the change will come quicker as dying smokers take a long time to expire during which time they are not paying taxes and are costing health care.  In countries without subsidised health care, the change will take longer, but it will happen.  It's just not cost efficient to disable and kill your taxpayers.  
Unless.....there is govt. sponsored smoking insurance!!!

Um, governments take a financial loss on people the longer they live. Which person costs the government more money: A smoker that dies at the age of 50, or a person that lives to the age of 100 and spends half a century collecting social security and health coverage? The prime tax collecting age of the average tax payer extends from the day they start working to the day they stop working, all time outside of that range creats a financial liablity for a government, especially one with subsidized health care. The best possible thing from a financial perspective is for everyone to die by the age of 60.

[TheRedOnesAreFaster]

What Highside said.

Smokers, on average, die earlier, and throughout their lives are paying huge taxes that non-smokers aren't.

State and Federal governments are getting more money from a pack of smokes than BIG TOBACCO. [/deepevilvoiceoff]

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[Riceman]

To take the topic off on a tangent again......
Rest assured, smoking will stop.  It is a long and slow process of behavioural change and some nations will lag behind others, but smoking will stop.  The government needs taxpayers who are paying taxes.  Not ones with rotted lungs wasting in hospice wards.  In countries with subsidised health care, the change will come quicker as dying smokers take a long time to expire during which time they are not paying taxes and are costing health care.  In countries without subsidised health care, the change will take longer, but it will happen.  It's just not cost efficient to disable and kill your taxpayers.  
Unless.....there is govt. sponsored smoking insurance!!!

When I "dropped" smoking into my post, it was merely ment as an example.  I never expected this to turn into a "smoking bashing" thread.  But, since we've taken that turn...

Saying that smoking will eventually end is like saying there will eventually be an end to illegal drugs.  Smoking might go the way of drugs, being deemed illegal, but it will never completely end.  You can bank on that!

And while on smoking...since everyone is on the "you need to say you are sorry" bandwagon these days, I think the Native Americans need to apologize for turning the "white man" on to tobacco!  In fact, they should be footing the healthcare bills of smokers.  Had the Native Americans NOT introduced the "white man" to tobacco....we wouldnt be talking about it today....

[Clark Kent]

When I "dropped" smoking into my post, it was merely ment as an example.  I never expected this to turn into a "smoking bashing" thread.  But, since we've taken that turn...

Saying that smoking will eventually end is like saying there will eventually be an end to illegal drugs.  Smoking might go the way of drugs, being deemed illegal, but it will never completely end.  You can bank on that!

And while on smoking...since everyone is on the "you need to say you are sorry" bandwagon these days, I think the Native Americans need to apologize for turning the "white man" on to tobacco!  In fact, they should be footing the healthcare bills of smokers.  Had the Native Americans NOT introduced the "white man" to tobacco....we wouldnt be talking about it today....

Now you wantum stick us with your medical bills.  Why not, you have been paying ours for 120 years. SUCKERS!  


 

[Scoop]

And while on smoking...since everyone is on the "you need to say you are sorry" bandwagon these days, I think the Native Americans need to apologize for turning the "white man" on to tobacco!  In fact, they should be footing the healthcare bills of smokers.  Had the Native Americans NOT introduced the "white man" to tobacco....we wouldnt be talking about it today....

It should probably be noted that the origin of tobacco with Native Americans was spiritual, not enjoyment.  So, the white man took their religion and used (abused?) it for fun, and gave them our religions, which did them a hell of a pile of good!  They shoulda stuck to smoking.  

[highside]

It should probably be noted that the origin of tobacco with Native Americans was spiritual, not enjoyment.  So, the white man took their religion and used (abused?) it for fun, and gave them our religions, which did them a hell of a pile of good!  They shoulda stuck to smoking.  

Um.

Not every culture draws such thick lines between religion and enjoyment, the two are not necessarily mututally exclusive in this case.

To make a comparison, alcohol is used in many European religious environments, particularly by the first western europeans to visit the new world and encounter tobacco. One could say that "they" abused "our" religion in exactly the same way. That comparission would be just as innacurate as the original one. Just because tobacco was used in a religious capacity doesnt mean that it was not used in any other capacity, just like alcohol.

[Scoop]

Um.

Not every culture draws such thick lines between religion and enjoyment, the two are not necessarily mututally exclusive in this case.

To make a comparison, alcohol is used in many European religious environments, particularly by the first western europeans to visit the new world and encounter tobacco. One could say that "they" abused "our" religion in exactly the same way. That comparission would be just as innacurate as the original one. Just because tobacco was used in a religious capacity doesnt mean that it was not used in any other capacity, just like alcohol.

That is true, I admit.  I will have to ask.  However, alcohol was also a common European beverage, as it kept well and didn't kill you like the water they had.  Also, it would keep on ocean voyages.  So, there was a practical aspect to alcohol.  It's use in religious environments and in biblical references, I believe, stems from the same practicality.  If they had canned apple juice instead, that might well have become sacred.  
I will have to ask our resident native spiritualist about the tobacco bit.