Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 05:28:34 -0500

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: First party automobile insurance other than statutory no-fault benefits

Canadians really aren't in any different. (Maybe it's the UK heritage for many <g>)

What 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.

In 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.

Statistics exist, I believe, maintained by organizations such as the Ins. Bureau of Canada.

David Cheifetz
Fernandes Hearn LLP

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Dickinson
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 4:26 AM
Subject: RE: Re: FWD: ODG: Liesbosch

I 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.

Further, 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.

Yours defensively
Andrew

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>