[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Well I'm sure he's glad for the info, he would have never thought of it on his own. Spc Forr says he pays less in Alta than BC, Smacle says he pays more. Just two individual instances, you can't generalize to insurance on average being more or less in Alberta or BC. Except the study says it's more in Alberta. So much for the inefficient govt hypothesis. ICBC is hugely profitable and periodically gets raided by the govt for its surplus.

Who knows - maybe he wouldn't. He's still fairly young and might not know everything like you do!

I once made the mistake of telling a rep that I was driving to work instead of just using the car to go shopping and so on - my rates went up $20/month because of that little slip.

[andyt]

I once made the mistake of not insuring for going to work, because until recently I hadn't been using my car. Got into an accident, (not my fault) but then sweated bullets when I had to admit I was coming from work. They were nice enough to allow me to just pay what i owed in back premiums instead of denying me coverage. That's a big rist you're taking.

As to the first point - it's the same guy gettin insurance in both places, so those factors you mentioned are likely the same in both places. I really don't see what you were trying to say there.

[saturn_656]

Not insured for going to work? Your company would deny you coverage based on where you were going?

Oh... you're with ICBC... right.

[andyt]

If you make false statements when you get insurance, then yes, they can deny you coverage. Sounds like it works the same in Alberta, land of the free, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

[saturn_656]

When I put in for coverage they asked me if I would be using to go to or from work.

I said "rarely".

My premiums didn't go up, and if I did get into an accident they couldn't roast me for lying.

And aside, IMO it isn't the insurance companies business whether you were driving to the grocery store to work there or shop there.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

If you make false statements when you get insurance, then yes, they can deny you coverage. Sounds like it works the same in Alberta, land of the free, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

With my private insurance pleasure use only includes up to 10 days per month driving to work. If I was to have an accident and it wasn't my fault, no rate hike or paying back premiums.

I'll take my private insurance over government run any day.

[andyt]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

And aside, IMO it isn't the insurance companies business whether you were driving to the grocery store to work there or shop there.

Maybe IYO, but the insurance companies beg to differ. All of them.

Yep, I guess I could have lied and said I only drive to work occasionally. But a little checking by ICBC would have shown that I lived at the address of job one, but drove 50km each way to job two - no way I would only be driving there occasionally. At some point they can come after you for fraud - I'd rather be honest and pay what I owe and have no worries.

[2Cdo]

Two vehicles with pleasure use only means I drove to work everyday with no penalty.

[saturn_656]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Two vehicles with pleasure use only means I drove to work everyday with no penalty.

I carpool. Since my own vehicle gets used four or five days a month tops (rarely), I put mine under pleasure use.

[2Cdo]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Two vehicles with pleasure use only means I drove to work everyday with no penalty.

I carpool. Since my own vehicle gets used four or five days a month tops (rarely), I put mine under pleasure use.

I don't have that issue anymore. Presently retired, but thinking of working again soon.

[SprCForr]

I have four, so I'd be covered everyway to Sunday. But work is only a couple blocks away.

[QBall]

Public insurance companies do not exist to provide the product as cheaply as possible, they exist to ensure that the maximum number of people have access to the product. Private auto insurance companies exist to maximize profits, not access, therefore they target a small percentage of drivers (unless they specifically target the high risk insurance segment). The problem is private insurance companies pretty much all target the same segment, so if you're a driver outside of this segment you only have the illusion of choice. The problem is some of the factors involved may be out of your control. You're too young; you're too old; you live in an area with higher than normal claims experience; the vehicle you drive has higher than normal loss experience; etc. If you're so against government run insurance companies are you in favor of closing down your provincial medical insurance plan and having private corporations run it instead? What about Worker's Compensation? Also with public insurance companies their operations are open to public scrutiny. With private insurance companies only government regulators scan scrutinize, and they are really only concerned with solvency and ensuring the companies maintain their filings.
Finally comparing insurance rates amongst different provinces, even with large studies, yields little useful information (about as much as personal experiences does). Differences in demographics, climate, topography, population density and crime rates are rarely, if ever, factored in however they produce large variables in explaining why rates are being charged in one area as opposed to another.

[andyt]

QBall QBall:

Finally comparing insurance rates amongst different provinces, even with large studies, yields little useful information (about as much as personal experiences does). Differences in demographics, climate, topography, population density and crime rates are rarely, if ever, factored in however they produce large variables in explaining why rates are being charged in one area as opposed to another.

Good point, but the study I quoted does show that despite the claims of the private industry brigade rates overall are actually cheaper with ICBC vs Alberta. The reasons may be varied, but the basic fact doesn't change that ICBC is cheaper. That gives no reason to suppose that insurance would be cheaper if BC went back to the private model for most people. And with ICBC, not only are their books open to us, but they have provided quite a chunk of revenue to the government over the years. Right or wrong for that, I'd rather the profits go to the government than insurance company shareholders.