[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: that is high for ontario / direct compensation rant Posted by Snowmobile [Email]  (#686)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Snowmobile) on Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:02:46
In Reply to: Re: that is high for ontario / direct compensation rant, ELaw   [Profile/Gallery]
, Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:33:50
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
Yes, I think that is common in many jurisdictions and it makes a lot of sense, but, not the situation here. From a very quick googling of this...
"An automobile insurer cannot bring a subrogated claim for property damage in Ontario."
"Ontario’s “no-fault” regime prohibits all tort actions against a negligent party for recovery of property damage. This prohibition applies not only to claims of individuals, but also to subrogated claims brought by insurers."
I suspect the "no-fault" (or more accurately Direct Compensation) scheme was devised to reduce the number of court dates associated with vehicle collisions here. That is probably a good end result, but I wish they had gone about implementing it in some other way than penalizing the car owner... I suppose without it, the liability segment would be higher (since damage to someone else's property would be a liability in addition to damage to their person)... on one hand, it probably costs me less to insure my winter beater c900, and will probably impact me less if I smash it into a 911... otoh, it penalizes good drivers of nice cars... the 9-5 falls into that category (though to be honest, I would be much more concerned if a c900 got hit than the 9-5)...
I suppose one could turn this all around and say, ok, if someone is driving a less safe car, should I have to pay higher liability to cover their higher injury costs due to the inferior car holding up poorly in an otherwise less than significant collision... the difference of course is that if I am liable, it is because it was my fault... so there is some justification in that (eg hitting a pedestrian)...
so basically the DC is anomalous, because I have to pay more for the portion where I am not at fault, and it is mandatory: I can't not accept coverage for that! Even for a c900 winter beater that I'd get almost nothing for if someone hit me... probably less than I pay in the DC part of the premium! The insurance companies are probably making $$ off of this one!
, Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:10:32, Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:09:59, Thu, 8 Nov 2012 06:57:30
, Wed, 7 Nov 2012 23:48:20, Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:15:40, Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:22:02, Thu, 8 Nov 2012 16:33:50, Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:02:46 <-- Viewing This Message, Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:45:36, Fri, 9 Nov 2012 08:15:16
, Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:48:00
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
