Pars <"sdaro(remove)"@hotmail.com> spake unto the masses in
news:40382664.ABF4E025@hotmail.com:

> I don't know about NJ but here in Toronto insurance rates are
> extremely high. In my case, I've owned my 1998 Civic since new (for 6
> years), no accidents, two minor speeding tickets, I've been driving
> since 1986 and have been insured for more then 6 years continuously.
> Even with my great track record, I'm still getting charged $2600/year
> to insure my car.


Ontario has no-fault auto insurance, one of the stupidest ideas ever
thought of. Ontario also has extremely restictive governmental regulations
under which insurers must operate, as well as enormously lucrative payouts
for collision participants. There are other serious problems.

There is a reason the number of insurance companies that are willing to
sell auto insurance in Ontario has been in steep, steady decline since the
mid-'80s.



> Consider that the car is 6 years old, never been in
> to an accident, and is only worth about $6000 dollars, I think my
> insurance rate is high!!!


Compared to prior to the advent of the Family Law Reform Act of 1980 (?),
and compared to other jurisdictions without no-fault and without an idiotic
liability regime, yours is VERY high.


> The funny thing is, compared to everyone
> else I know, I'm actually getting a fair shake with my insurance
> payment. If I had actually made a claim that was my fault, I'm sure my
> premium would double.


Not quite. You might pay closer to $3,000 for a couple of years. Your
problem is that the few insurance companies left will treat at-fault
collisions differently. You may discover that yours is excessively harsh on
first-time claims, whereas another might be more lenient.


>
> In NJ, claiming for a minor accident might be a good thing, but here
> in Toronto, making a claim is a bad idea... I wish all the insurance
> company would go to hell. As is, if any politician dared to side with
> the insurance company (in Toronto),


You have it TOTALLY backwards. The problems have been caused by
governmental meddling in the automotive risk-management industry, not the
insurance companies.

I've been covered by auto insurance since 1978. Back then there were NO
regulations on who could be charged how much. There was no "no-fault"
stupidity. Until 1981, you didn't even have to have insurance. Post-
collision claims could only be made by the persons actually in the vehicle
at the time of the collision, and even then there were serious limits.

And insurance was cheap. A 19 year old with a 5-year old Toyota paid as low
as $638 per year. That 19 year old was me.

When I was younger and on my parent's insurance, my parents paid about $100
per year for me as an occasional driver.


> their political career would be
> short lived. There's a lot of extremely frustrated people...I'd be
> amazed if these insurance company will ever be able to regain people's
> trust after giving us the shaft. Considering the high premium, the
> government probably could do a better job managing Auto Insurance.


The National Post newspaper recently had a series of articles on auto
insurance. You should go to the library and read them. Might be a real eye
opener for you.

I feel sorry for the people that run insurance companies. Did you know that
in some cases the payout under the new liability environment and under no-
fault can be MORE than 100% of the premiums they are allowed to charge? No
wonder they don't want to sell you insurance any more.

--
TeGGeR®