Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:28:34 -0500
First party automobile insurance other than statutory no-fault benefits
really aren't in any different. (Maybe it's the UK heritage for
Jason has (not quite) forgotten, just failed to mention, and both
Andrews may take some comfort from, is that only 3rd party (liability)
automobile insurance is compulsory in Canada. First party coverages
such as collision and rental automobile are voluntary. Many people
don't buy them - particularly those with older vehicles or people
looking to save money. My recollection is that I didn't on my first
two (old) vehicles in my late teens and early 20s when I was in
university and then law school.
short, it's only routine, in Ontario (and Canada) if one chooses
to buy that coverage. It's not expensive, in the scheme of things.
I doubt the rental vehicle coverage adds much to the premium - my
guess is that it's less than $50 per year; perhaps 1/2 that. I just
looked at my policy for this year. Unfortunately, the premium for
the rental vehicle coverage isn't broken out.
exist, I believe, maintained by organizations such as the Ins. Bureau
Fernandes Hearn LLP
Original Message -----
From: Andrew Dickinson
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:26 AM
Subject: RE: Re: FWD: ODG: Liesbosch
would suggest that Andrew is being too hard on the English way of
life. Only third party insurance is compulsory, and some drivers
(although, I would think, a decreasing number) limit themselves
to this, perhaps adding fire and theft for good measure. Comprehensive
insurance is now more common than, say, 20 years ago, but the cost
of this has risen in real terms and the discount brokers/companies
(i.e. those that sell online or over the phone) are less likely
to provide free car insurance.
if a driver has confidence in his own driving skills and is prepared
to take the risk that he will incur irrecoverable losses following
an accident which is not someone else's fault, why should he buy
insurance from a company that offers this perk at additional cost?
He is, of course, free to choose and just because he ignores the
more expensive option, he should not be dismissed as a skinflint.
If he incurs expenditure as a result of another driver's negligence,
that driver should pay for it through increased future premiums.
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next