[biggles]

I officially withdraw my previous glowing endorsement of QBE insurance. Apparently it depends on who you deal with. Last time they were fantastic. This time the claim was 'approved' but it wasn't until I picked up the bike that I got the list of things that they rejected - and this time it wasn't my fault so it's not even QBE who are paying the bill. Now I have to make a separate claim to RACV for the smashed top box (not explicitly listed on my QBE policy). RACV still owe me money from a claim 9 years ago! That's why I chose to go through QBE. Not happy.

 

[Elliott Larron]

I know the felling, My Insurance company threatened to Cancel my account just because i did not report my last accident

Did not hit any one or any thing else, SO there's no money in it for me? So why Report it? :blackeye:

Is that something you pay $100 of dollars a month almost $2000 a year for 3-5 years $,10,000 you gave them, then when it comes to being written off or Totaled ,trey won't cover but half the Price of a new vehicle.

Elliott,

 

[Muse]

Hi, i use AAMI to insure my burgie here in Melbourne.RACV are a pack of xxxx interesting they will make you all sorts of promises to get you back after you take your business elsewhere.

 

[tomfelock]

maybe us members should start our own insurance plan?

 

[mikeyMarine]

bust a bone and take an ambulance ride, it costs more than your bike and most farkles added on, I hate em too but the skivvin doctors would have reposessed my rectum had I not had it and had it in gold standard

 

[Bakeisback]

Is that something you pay $100 of dollars a month almost $2000 a year for 3-5 years $,10,000 you gave them, then when it comes to being written off or Totaled ,trey won't cover but half the Price of a new vehicle.

If you are paying that much, you need a new insurance agent...

 

[TwoWheelTim]

+1

Leaping lizards, that is outrageous. I pay about 1/10 of that and consider that fair with my good riding record.

 

[Noth]

Prices vary State to State and , of course Country to Country..

There should be no mystery to insurance with the right broker..

 

[gruntled]

I pay $75/yr for PL & PD. My 2005 is too old to carry any more than that & besides insurance is for what you can't afford to lose. (Why carry Life Insurance just to leave a rich widow for someone else.)
I did discover that was the minimum premium they would write & that increasing the coverage by a substantial amount added nothing to the premium. Even the 750 Virago I had was the same premium.

 

[QuantumRift]

If you have deep enough pockets just be self-insured. You'd need a LOT of $$$ to start your own private insurance company. If not, the first accident sustained by a member would break the bank.

maybe us members should start our own insurance plan?

 

[cliffyk]

I have none as none is required here in the State of Florida--other than the silly requirement for some sort of insurance if you choose not to wear a helmet--though in the now 13 years since we defeated that mandate, and at least six traffic stops, I have never been asked for proof of even that...

 

[Noth]

I have none as none is required here in the State of Florida--other than the silly requirement for some sort of insurance if you choose not to wear a helmet--though in the now 13 years since we defeated that mandate, and at least six traffic stops, I have never been asked for proof of even that...

THat's bizarre.. Does Florida have a Financial responsibility statute? In other words, if you hurt someone are you required to be financially responsible for your actions?

 

[cliffyk]

I have none as none is required here in the State of Florida--other than the silly requirement for some sort of insurance if you choose not to wear a helmet--though in the now 13 years since we defeated that mandate, and at least six traffic stops, I have never been asked for proof of even that...

THat's bizarre.. Does Florida have a Financial responsibility statute? In other words, if you hurt someone are you required to be financially responsible for your actions?

Of course I am, that's what civil tort liability is all about. However how much damage can a 67 year old man on a 400 pound motor scooter inflict? Also I have no intention of harming anyone via my actions and should I do so through some unintentional act the victim is free to sue me in civil court--though my assets are well protected via a number of family trusts (Like welfare recipients I have learned to play the system like a fiddle too).

This is a choice I have made--"choice" of course being an alien concept to someone from the great nanny state North East (I lived there for 45 of my years before wising up and getting out). You have been brainwashed by BIG government and the lawyers that run it into believing that such "coverage" is essential--just drive so as to not cause problems and you'll be all set.

New Hampshire may well proclaim "Live Free or Die", however in the case of motorcycle insurance--and many other issues--we actually have it here in Florida...

 

[Quantum Mechanic]

You just don't know what's going to happen around the corner though cliffy. The unexpected can happen and you just might end up having a nasty due to perhaps a blowout, punture and cause an accident. You cannot control everything however good you are as a rider. You cannot control the actions of others either who may not be insured. You just might end up needing insurance even if you've never needed it in your entire life. It's for those occassions you have it! Don't ask me how I know this!

 

[Noth]

Yes.. You made adecision not to carry it, but another person that may suffer as a result had no say in that choice.. I haven't been brainwashed at all.. I just don't ignore the obvious and pretend it cannot happen.. I suspect that there is at least a financial responsibility statute.. so whether you have insurance or not, you must be finacially responsible somehow... Insurance is one way to do that.. Ohio is (or was at one point) like that.. so if you had no insurance... you could still put a vehicle on the road.. If you were responsible for injuries or damage to another.. you had to pay for it or they could simply take your assets which you say are protected in family trusts.. OK.. but if you owe, you owe.. and a court can pierce trusts easily.. I think your position is very dangerous.. Just my opinion.. but shared by the majority..thankfully..

 

[Fatjock]

One advantage of the Florida law, is that it keeps premiums down.........if the companies know you have the option not to purchase when they inflate prices, they don't inflate them (quite as much). With a captive audience, the show is exactly the way they want.

I renewed my insurance last week, and my premium for 12 months coverage for 650 & a 400 is lower than my monthly payment for car insurance for two cars (a full-size SUV and a small convertible).........perhaps if the same laws applied to cars, the cost here could be lower?

Just sayin'

 

[Noth]

It would be great if that's how prices were set.. Fewer participants means fewer to pick up the bill. Most auto insurance carrriers are running at Loss ratios in the high nineties if they are doing well.. In States with winter, losses are higher for obvious reasons.. Auto tends to be a loss leader.. Homeowners policies are profitable.

 

[Fatjock]

It would be great if that's how prices were set.. Fewer participants means fewer to pick up the bill. Most auto insurance carrriers are running at Loss ratios in the high nineties if they are doing well.. In States with winter, losses are higher for obvious reasons.. Auto tends to be a loss leader.. Homeowners policies are profitable.

Speaking as someone who has paid $2,000-$5,000 (Dependant on zip code and number of vehicles at a time) per annum in vehicle insurance for a lot of years with no claims, I for one would like to see evidence of this broad-brush statement. Running with near total losses, not buying it?????

Or here's an idea, why not do it like in UK (or at least the way it used to be, been out of things for over a decade now, perhaps a current resident can correct)......first year, full premium, if no claims made, 30% discount second year, 40% third, etc. up to (depending on carrier) 70% discount? With 3-5years at full discount, it can then be protected (accident forgiveness, it's called here).
That way those with poor records bear the brunt of the cost, and those with good records less, rather than tarring everyone with the same brush. Where's the incentive to be more careful? A hundred or two off deuctible, which you never even have to lay out unless you have an issue, hardly an incentive!

 

[Noth]

It would be great if that's how prices were set.. Fewer participants means fewer to pick up the bill. Most auto insurance carrriers are running at Loss ratios in the high nineties if they are doing well.. In States with winter, losses are higher for obvious reasons.. Auto tends to be a loss leader.. Homeowners policies are profitable.

Speaking as someone who has paid $2,000-$5,000 (Dependant on zip code and number of vehicles at a time) per annum in vehicle insurance for a lot of years with no claims, I for one would like to see evidence of this broad-brush statement. Running with near total losses, not buying it?????

NOt a broad brush statement at all.. You haven't had claims, but others certainly have.. and chances are that the claims are way above their premium..
Asmall BI claim is in the range of $30,000.. and can go to 6 figures easily.. That is the issue.. No one has a crystal ball..wish I did..
This is a report I found http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 218878.htm for auto physical damage only.. there is more to the picture than that, of course.. Notdefending one way or the other... but to not carry insurance makes no sense to me.. and I feel that a position contrary is simply uninformed..

 

[Fatjock]

NOt a broad brush statement at all.. You haven't had claims, but others certainly have.. and chances are that the claims are way above their premium..
Asmall BI claim is in the range of $30,000.. and can go to 6 figures easily.. That is the issue.. No one has a crystal ball..wish I did..
This is a report I found http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/na ... 218878.htm for auto physical damage only.. there is more to the picture than that, of course.. Notdefending one way or the other... but to not carry insurance makes no sense to me.. and I feel that a position contrary is simply uninformed..

Thanks for the link, I appreciate it.

having said that, I'm still very sceptical. The figures in the table are extremely ambiguous. Expressing the figures for sales ("direct premiums written") as a monetary value, then expressing the outgoings ("direct incurred loss") as a percentage, isn't apples to apples.
When I did my business courses, if your income equals your outgoings, that's break-even. Not until you outgoings exceed your income are you in a loss situation. Simplistic, yes, but true.
What I read from the table in the article you linked to, is that in the worst case figures taken, that of State Farm for the second quarter of 2011, 86.33% of income was redistributed as "loss", leaving 13.67% as "profit". Now obviously this ignores overhead, etc.
But this is the worse case cited. Best case reported was 44.48% (or 55.52% profit), and and even for the same time period as the worst of all, the best in that quarter was 50.01% (or 49.99% profit).
So even with a 30% overhead cost, very few of these companies were ever making an actual loss for these the three year period (using the figures mentioned)...even the worst performer is only at a 2.85% loss. If they run with 25% overhead, they all are in profit.

Taking another tack, for 2009 the US bureau of transportation statistics reports 254,212,610 registered motor vehicles, and the Census bureau reports 10.8 Million vehicle accidents. So extrapolating from this, the accident rate is 4.2%. Now figures that I could find online stated average insurance policy rates for 2009 are $1,796, which, with the accident rate and assuming a $30,000 cost to each claim, leaves insurance companies taking in $132,565,847,560 more than they pay out.

132.5 Billion dollars more coming in than going out is the sort of "loss" rate many industries would be content with!

I realize that this is pure conjecture.......but no more than what's being cited for the opposing viewpoint. Figures showing amounts coming in, versus amounts going out, will truly tell the real story.