Judge strikes down law limiting soft-tissue insurance claims to $4000

[kenny]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/02/08/insurance-ruling.html

I bet there will be some insurance premium hikes on the next renewal for most people as the insurance companies prepare for higher payouts which they were protected from with the $4000 cap which has now been removed.

Heard on the news the Alberta Government is expected to appeal the decision but in the mean time, the $4,000 cap is gone and scammers are free to make bogus claims of "sore necks".

[Melinda]

I agree, the whiplash excuse is used far too often as just that, an excuse. It makes those who actually do deal with it sounds like whiners. Been there, done that, got the tissue scans and the DDD to prove it! I was torn on whether or not the $4000 cap for the soft tissue injuries was a good idea. Having suffered 3rd degree whiplash in my neck, back and shoulders in a car accident 5 years ago, the injuries suck. And in my case, (and a few others I'm sure) the effects of a soft tissue injury never go away. Granted my soft tissue 'whiplash' injury aggrivated a condition I didn't even know I had, so that plays a huge part in the lasting effects of the injury. My doctor said I may never have known I had the condition had I not been in the accident (which would have been a good thing as the damage done is not reversible)

I had other injuries aside from this though so it ended up being a non issue. This was also before the $4000 cap was put in place. Do I think removing this cap is a good thing? In a few cases, yes, but mostly no. It's hard to prove whiplash in most situations and it's used to scam SO many insurance companies, I can see it becoming a problem all over again. :(

[Kavy]

Wow, i no longer want to drive.

[Joe-G]

Greeat, now everyone on the road that wants money just has to slam on their brakes :thumbsdow

[littledan]

the 4000 cap was complete bullshit. just go by how the professionals (doctor, physio, dentist, etc) evaluate you and compensate accordingly. the 4000 was just the govt fucking over the little guys in order to fatten the pockets of the insurance company execs stuffing money in the politicians pockets.

[Supa Dexta]

I blame the shitty drivers from the NE, with their gangster jdm pos's

[tom_9109]

$4,000 was a bs amount. They'd pay $40,000 to replace the vehicle the guy owned but only $4,000 to cover that he can't turn his head. It was plain and simple bs.

[Weapon_R]

This is a turn for the better. A lot of people who were seriously injured got nominal amounts of $4000 and would give that money up for the chance to get better. The government is in a lot of trouble regarding this law, as I know at least 2 other lawyers who have filed charter challenges against the government and there's probably a dozen more cases pending.

[GTS Jeff]

I've had a lecture on whiplash now...

Apparently the actual instances of people claiming fake whiplash is quite rare, as there are usually symptoms upon physical examination.

This came as a surprise to me too..

[Hash_man]

Good I say... I was very relieved to hear this last night, but at the same time agree that it could cause some major problems due to those out there who will always try to find a way to abuse the system... however for the most part I found it worked quite well before the cap was put in place.

I was recently in a car accident, and it was decently bad, no major injuries such as broken limbs or anything, but ever since I have had serious serious back pain due to the accident that is not going away with physio or any crap like that so far. However I really don't care about the money right now, I just want to feel better and not be in pain every day.:dunno: :drama:

[badatusrnames]

Originally posted by Joe-G
Greeat, now everyone on the road that wants money just has to slam on their brakes :thumbsdow

Then don't follow so closely so that if they do slam on their brakes you won't have time to stop.

It's common sense to always leave enough distance that if the car in front of you has to make an emergency stop (legitimately or not) that you will have enough time to react and come to a stop yourself without plowing through their trunk.

There's a reason that rear-enders are generally the fault of the person following - because they have put themselves in a position where they can't safely stop in time given a worst case scenario.

There is no behaviour on the road that irks me more than tail-gating - it's completely senseless and achieves nothing.

[98brg2d]

This is awesome, I have been living with upper back and neck pain for years now and the low pay out wasn't enough to do any good. Hopefully people who get hurt now will get enough to help them out.

[SNAATCH]

It is very easy to have yourself exempt from that cap. All you need is a good doctor. I think the cap is a good thing, why would you want to have to pay more than $4000 when you slide into the car in front of you going 2km/hr? If someone rear ends you and you actually are injured. All you need is a good doctor/physio therapist and lawyer to surpass the cap. IMO the cap is specific to the fuckers who slam on their brakes on purpose and try to sue you.
My mom rolled into a guy at a stop sign. Like off the throttle automatic rolling forward and bumped into the guy. At the time the guy was totally fine with it. He was driving some piece of shit mazda. Then he shows up in court with a neck brace and wins $40,000. That is what the cap is meant to prevent.

[Mckenzie]

I agree with this. Although there are obviously some frivolous claims, it really hurts the people who need it the most.


I got a paltry $2000 for being rear-ended 3 years ago because of the cap. I have been suffering back problems ever since and have spent 3 x that on physio/chiro/massage/drugs, etc. not to mention the time and aggravation of the injury and going through all the BS itself.

Good news.:thumbsup:

[ntv1980]

If you have not been in a real accident, you will not know how painful and uncomfortable when you sleep, walking outside, doing other activities. Sure somebody may look fine (no lingering, no constant shaking, ...) after the accident, but they will have to sleep on one side for at least a year because it's hurtful to lean to the injured side. And the arm is a lot weaker, and surges of pain when they walk outside on these (cold) days, not to mention the muscle cram that causes headaches....

Since the reform of the insurance policy by the gov't in 2004, I don't see any improvement to the insurance rate. In fact, I'm lucky to have my rate to stay the same for a number of years (no tickets), a friend of mine just have her rate increased of $500 because "the government removed the raise limit" (quoted from the insurance rep), and she does not have any ticket either. She switched to a different insurance company and saved $700 from the current one.

This is good news for the injured. I hope we get a better news when the government steps in and offer the provincial insurance (just like the rest of the other provinces).

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
I've had a lecture on whiplash now...

Apparently the actual instances of people claiming fake whiplash is quite rare, as there are usually symptoms upon physical examination.



Wow, I don't think you could be more wrong. Talk to a BI adjuster. Well over half of the "soft tissue" injuries are either faked or over-stated.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by kenny
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/02/08/insurance-ruling.html

I bet there will be some insurance premium hikes on the next renewal for most people as the insurance companies prepare for higher payouts which they were protected from with the $4000 cap which has now been removed.

Heard on the news the Alberta Government is expected to appeal the decision but in the mean time, the $4,000 cap is gone and scammers are free to make bogus claims of "sore necks".


Give this man a prize! He has hit the nail right on the head.

When all these BS claims start rolling through again, who do you think is going to pay for it? Do you think the insurance companies are just going to run with lower profits? That's a joke. You, me and everyone else that owns a car will be paying more.

The $4000 cap was applied to people with mild or moderate injuries. It did not apply to anyone with serious, legitimate injuries. I've had a couple of pretty bad cases of whiplash coming from two different accidents and all it took was some honest effort in physio to clear it up in a couple of months. However if all you do is sit your ass on the couch and do nothing, you probably never will heal.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Weapon_R
This is a turn for the better. A lot of people who were seriously injured got nominal amounts of $4000 and would give that money up for the chance to get better. The government is in a lot of trouble regarding this law, as I know at least 2 other lawyers who have filed charter challenges against the government and there's probably a dozen more cases pending.

2 years ago, my wife was a passenger in a car that was slammed into by a semi truck on the trans canada. Now, my wife was checked over by paramedics at the scene, but we all figgured she would be ok, and I drove her home. within hours, she was screaming, literally screaming. her neck was so sore, that even the slightest movement caused excruciating pain. she was laid up for a month with a neck collar. With the amount of time lost for work, the amount of driving and gas used to take my wife to physio, doctor's appointments, hydro-therapy, lunches and such all over the past 2 years does not even begin to cover the $4000 that is coming.

we figgured out half-way through this that we could claim travel time and such for procedures to correct the injuries from this accident, but that only works out to be like $700, because that is all we could find receipts for.

and while it may be a $4000 cap, it actually works out to be less. standard fees for lawyers now is 33.3%. with what our settlement, my wife will get just below $3k.

I for one am happy that the cap is gone. with any luck our lawyer can argue for more, just so at bare minimum our costs will be covered.

[badatusrnames]

I guess the question is how can you eliminate insurance fraud while still making sure that people with legitimate injuries get compensated properly?

Some payouts are borderline ridiculous. A few years ago my friend was involved in an accident (someone made a bad turn in front of the car he was a passenger in) and he broke his little finger. The finger healed fine in a few weeks and there was no long term damage or suffering, etc. A couple of years later, I went with him to his lawyers office to pick up a cheque for ~$9,000.

[tom_9109]

heres an interesting fact. 4/5 claims have an 'element' of fraud.

Some people are outright lying, others exagerate, others try to claim more than they should.

[wiggaplz]

yeah this shit is bullshit...i got in an accident a little while ago b/c someone slammed on their brakes and I hit them...they were driving a huge suv and i was driving a little car and my car was damaged a lot and theres had almost zero damage on there.

When I got out to talk to them the immigrant lady was claiming that she could not move and she was really hurting. I could see the faking from the start but some douchebag who stopped called an ambulance adn they checked her out for about 30 seconds and left.

[Whiley]

this is very good move, my uncle after rear ended by cabby got $4K in court case, in his case was enough to pay off the lawyer $4K bill, so he got nothing really and still gets back and neck strain easy now = lawyers sucks azz imo

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by spikers


2 years ago, my wife was a passenger in a car that was slammed into by a semi truck on the trans canada. Now, my wife was checked over by paramedics at the scene, but we all figgured she would be ok, and I drove her home. within hours, she was screaming, literally screaming. her neck was so sore, that even the slightest movement caused excruciating pain. she was laid up for a month with a neck collar. With the amount of time lost for work, the amount of driving and gas used to take my wife to physio, doctor's appointments, hydro-therapy, lunches and such all over the past 2 years does not even begin to cover the $4000 that is coming.

we figgured out half-way through this that we could claim travel time and such for procedures to correct the injuries from this accident, but that only works out to be like $700, because that is all we could find receipts for.

and while it may be a $4000 cap, it actually works out to be less. standard fees for lawyers now is 33.3%. with what our settlement, my wife will get just below $3k.

I for one am happy that the cap is gone. with any luck our lawyer can argue for more, just so at bare minimum our costs will be covered.

With a regular injury lawyer I'm pretty sure the $4000 cap would not apply to you.

The cap applied to injuries that "healed within a year". I would guess that you guys should be okay to clear the cap.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit


Wow, I don't think you could be more wrong. Talk to a BI adjuster. Well over half of the "soft tissue" injuries are either faked or over-stated.

Yup.

Masked , was this the talk in the office at about 4 pm Friday for you too?

Whoever thinks this is a good thing... well you're wrong. Your premiums are going to sky rocket... even a chance if you're with a smaller insurance company you may have to seek insurance elsewhere as this movement has a HUGE chance to bury a lot of smaller insurance companies.

Enjoy your premiums guys, you're looking at the small picture. In the long run, it impacts us all.

GTS Jeff - im curious, where did you get your #'s? I just had a course on SIU for insurance claims, and 3/10 claims put in have some form of fraud to them. I think i'll take the RCMP officer's status over yours ;)

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
GTS Jeff - im curious, where did you get your #'s? I just had a course on SIU for insurance claims, and 3/10 claims put in have some form of fraud to them. I think i'll take the RCMP officer's status over yours ;) This guy:


Mario DiPersio, MD FRCP(C)
(Undergraduate Program Director and Clinical Assistant Professor) graduated from Dalhousie University Medical School, Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1988. Dr. DiPersio also completed his residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at Dalhousie in 1997. His clinical interests include inpatient and outpatient pediatric rehabilitation, adult stroke rehab and independent medical examinations.

The last slide from a lecture he gave:


Vast majority of patients with whiplash associated disorder have legitimate problems

Malingering is rare

“... Better to treat all patients as legitimate and be wrong 1% of the time rather than to assume all are malingerers and be wrong 99% of the time”

[Hash_man]

I guess the question is how can you eliminate insurance fraud while still making sure that people with legitimate injuries get compensated properly?

Some payouts are borderline ridiculous. A few years ago my friend was involved in an accident (someone made a bad turn in front of the car he was a passenger in) and he broke his little finger. The finger healed fine in a few weeks and there was no long term damage or suffering, etc. A couple of years later, I went with him to his lawyers office to pick up a cheque for ~$9,000.

I have heard of things like this before too... I could be wrong but I have heard that basically any broken bone, even if its something like a finger entitles someone to more compensation than soft tissue damage?... i may be wrong but I have heard this.

[Xtrema]

The limit is just a cover the screwed up privatization.

Everybody's insurance will go up.

But seeing how many idiots on the road the last 2 weeks, going too fast for the condition, I hope the insurance company shift majority of the cost to the people who caused the accidents.

They should double the insurance for the one at fault for each time they caused an accident until the debt is paid off.

They should add 1 yr jail time to people driving without insurance.


Originally posted by Joe-G
Greeat, now everyone on the road that wants money just has to slam on their brakes :thumbsdow

If you hit him, you are not driving correctly under the condition. You will ALWAYS have to assume the guy in front of you will do a sudden dead stop.

[googe]

Originally posted by tom_9109
heres an interesting fact. 4/5 claims have an 'element' of fraud.

Some people are outright lying, others exagerate, others try to claim more than they should.

Another interesting fact, the insurance company will rip you off on legitimate claims 5 out of 5 times.

[BananaFob]

Hmm... I have a question about this then...

My girlfriend got hit back in June and she has whiplash and lower back pain. The insurance paid for her physiotherapy and have awarded her around $1500. However she says she still feels back pain from the accident infrequently. She hasn't collected the $1500 from the insurance company yet, is there any chance that the law being struck down can increase the payout now?

[Melinda]

^^ If she's signed papers agreeing to the $1500 +physio money, no, she cant go after more. She should have waited until she was healed (or a lot closer to it) before she agreed to settle. Even under the old law, she could have received up to $4000, not just $1500. Sounds like she might be SOL.

[tom_9109]

Originally posted by 403Gemini



GTS Jeff - im curious, where did you get your #'s? I just had a course on SIU for insurance claims, and 3/10 claims put in have some form of fraud to them. I think i'll take the RCMP officer's status over yours ;)



I think you were asking me not GTS jeff. my 4/5 number is for the things that are proved and denied on the basis of fraud. Its the little things like people saying "oh that dent wasn't there before you need to fix that too". Quite seriously people don't even realize they are doing it. I say an 'element of fraud' because Obviously the claim isn't fraudulent but there are aspects that are, usually things that can't be proved.
I got my number from a the man who taught damage appraisal at SAIT. Very knowledgeable and very in touch with the insurance industry.

[Bimmer88]

Yeh some people need this cap removed, because I know some people that get ripped off and don't have enough money to pay for their treatments like seeing a physio and chiropracter for whiplash and back pain etc...

The insurance companies don't ever want to loose money and therefore they try to give or payout very little but since this cap is removed I guess you can sue for however much correct? Damn... we becoming like America lol.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
I've had a lecture on whiplash now...

Apparently the actual instances of people claiming fake whiplash is quite rare, as there are usually symptoms upon physical examination.

This came as a surprise to me too..

You know what Jeff, that brings up another issue...

Your prof's comments :
“... Better to treat all patients as legitimate and be wrong 1% of the time rather than to assume all are malingerers and be wrong 99% of the time”

says it all. Look at this thread, the vast majority of the people are thinking the fraud rate is some crazy high number. Why would you want to create a law to catch a minority at the expense of the majority? Take Spiker's example with his wife.

As a whole we always seem so obsessed with making mountains out of molehills and in the process they end up selling themselves short.

Regarding everyone's insurance going up - when they introduced the cap did anyone's insurance actually go DOWN because of it? Mine definately did not, it actually increased and has been steadily increasing every year.

The insurance companies will raise rates for any reason anyway. If paying an extra few hundred a year is what it takes for us to make sure we are better taken care of if myself or my wife get injured in an accident (knock on wood, hopefull none of us have to go through any severe injuries from a collision) the it's well worth it to me.

However this is one of those things where you are on one side or the other - maybe they should sell whiplash insurance then as a another level of coverage ontop of PLPD and Collision?

[The Cosworth]

Great this should be fucking good. I already pay twice what I was paying in BC.

I feel for the people who are hurt, and I wish there was a better way but insurance costs in this province are ridiculous.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by brendankharris
Great this should be fucking good. I already pay twice what I was paying in BC.

I feel for the people who are hurt, and I wish there was a better way but insurance costs in this province are ridiculous. The high premiums here aren't due to injury claims, they're due to greedy deregulated insurance companies. In BC, ICBC is run by the government.

[finboy]

hampstor - my rate dropped from 330/mo to 160/mo

[wiggaplz]

Originally posted by Supa Dexta
I blame the shitty drivers from the NE, with their gangster jdm pos's

lmao....

well those NE kids gotta have something. God knows they wont have anything in 10 years time....going nowhere fools ahha :werd:

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
This guy:



The last slide from a lecture he gave:



really? hmm thats odd, 1.3 billion dollars is paid out every year to insurance fraud... and think, that's with a cap.

Im glad you'll take 1 guys advice from 1 clinic though :thumbsup:


Originally posted by tom_9109




I think you were asking me not GTS jeff. my 4/5 number is for the things that are proved and denied on the basis of fraud. Its the little things like people saying "oh that dent wasn't there before you need to fix that too". Quite seriously people don't even realize they are doing it. I say an 'element of fraud' because Obviously the claim isn't fraudulent but there are aspects that are, usually things that can't be proved.
I got my number from a the man who taught damage appraisal at SAIT. Very knowledgeable and very in touch with the insurance industry.

No, i was talkign to GTS Jeff ;) I work in the insurance industry, so does masked bandit (and we work from 2 very different angles from as far as insurance goes), but it's true. Also what you stated, exaggeration - like stolen items and what not, people say their ps2 was a ps3, xbox a xbox 360 etc.

[adam c]

im involved in a soft-tissue case right now and for one im glad to see this cap removed..

my accident happened 2 years ago and my lawyer is still fighting for me. i was almost stationary, turning into a parking lot when some guy smoked me doing 70+ on macleod trail

i have a splint for my jaw and probably will always have to use it, i have daily back pain, tingly crap in my left arm, headaches, etc

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by adam c
im involved in a soft-tissue case right now and for one im glad to see this cap removed..

my accident happened 2 years ago and my lawyer is still fighting for me. i was almost stationary, turning into a parking lot when some guy smoked me doing 70+ on macleod trail

i have a splint for my jaw and probably will always have to use it, i have daily back pain, tingly crap in my left arm, headaches, etc

Honestly, for people like you i am 100% happy to see it go - but for the bulk of fake claims... it's gonna be nuts.

[dansmith11]

if insurance companies didnt charge rediculous amounts and do everything they possibly can to fuck you over every chance they get on any claim, then there would probably be a lot less people trying to scam them to get money.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by dansmith11
if insurance companies didnt charge rediculous amounts and do everything they possibly can to fuck you over every chance they get on any claim, then there would probably be a lot less people trying to scam them to get money.

I've never fucked anybody over :dunno:

Also when you think that about 150+ claims are reported every day to ONE company, and about 70% of those are damages over $5000... there's a reason why premiums are high. Blame the shitty drivers if you want somebody to accurately blame.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by adam c
im involved in a soft-tissue case right now and for one im glad to see this cap removed..

my accident happened 2 years ago and my lawyer is still fighting for me. i was almost stationary, turning into a parking lot when some guy smoked me doing 70+ on macleod trail

i have a splint for my jaw and probably will always have to use it, i have daily back pain, tingly crap in my left arm, headaches, etc

Adam, it's my understanding that the cap would never have applied to you anyway.

403Gemini, can you please confirm my understanding of the cap. I was under the impression that the cap only applied to injuries that healed within one year. If it was a longer term / permanent injury the cop did not apply.

[adam c]

^^ the other guy insurance company (ING) was saying that i was under soft-tissue cause of my neck and shit..

i don't think my lawyer wanted to risk it since getting ~4000 compared to something substantially bigger would be a downfall...

i had chiro, deep massage, accupuncture (active release) for 6 months before the insurance company shut it off, plus the dentist stuff. i had xrays and yea. i wouldn't mind going back and having more chiro on my back and massage on my upper body but its fucking expensive

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit


Adam, it's my understanding that the cap would never have applied to you anyway.

403Gemini, can you please confirm my understanding of the cap. I was under the impression that the cap only applied to injuries that healed within one year. If it was a longer term / permanent injury the cop did not apply.

I honestly couldn't give you a definant answer, don't work for BI - I could do some probing though. But i'm 90% sure you're correct.

Im just happy I didn't take the BI position and moved to property instead lol

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


Also when you think that about 150+ claims are reported every day to ONE company, and about 70% of those are damages over $5000... there's a reason why premiums are high. Blame the shitty drivers if you want somebody to accurately blame.

That's bullshit and you know it ;)

Insurance companies have consistently posted record profits. I hope the government either a) shuts them down completely and places a public system or b) limits their rates and those who don't like it can...well, leave.

Good time to do this too. During an election, seems to be a good opportunity to get the politicians to start making the promises about insurance reform. :thumbsup:

[ralliart_girl]

I think what you guys don't understand is that profits that insurance companies post are not from the money that they ripped people off with that year, it actually has alot to do with their investments.

Its not like adjusters get a commission for shutting files down.....

[BerserkerCatSplat]

And the money they used to invest came from where? The money tree out back?

[Melinda]

Originally posted by ralliart_girl
Its not like adjusters get a commission for shutting files down.....
:rofl: They may not get commission, but their jobs depend on it. My dad used to work for a major insurance company when I was a kid and they used to send them for seminars on how to cheap the client out of money, how to avoid paying out the huge money that they should have. The mantra for nearly every accident was "you're faking it, we know it and we're going to pay you accordingly" no matter what the complaint was. Granted, my dad said they did come across a lot of insurance fraud, but not nearly enough to warrant trying to scam people as badly as they were supposed to as employees of this company.

[ralliart_girl]

Originally posted by Melinda

:rofl: They may not get commission, but their jobs depend on it. My dad used to work for a major insurance company when I was a kid and they used to send them for seminars on how to cheap the client out of money, how to avoid paying out the huge money that they should have. The mantra for nearly every accident was "you're faking it, we know it and we're going to pay you accordingly" no matter what the complaint was. Granted, my dad said they did come across a lot of insurance fraud, but not nearly enough to warrant trying to scam people as badly as they were supposed to as employees of this company.

Well, I worked for a big insurance company for more than 4 years, and I was never once threatened that I would loss my job if I paid big bucks out. So maybe I lucky with the employer that I had, who knows....

[spikerS]

who has seen the movie "the incredibles".

super hero dad in the insurance manager's office.

that is pretty much how i evnision every insurance company.

[Big Dangerous]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


I've never fucked anybody over :dunno:

Also when you think that about 150+ claims are reported every day to ONE company, and about 70% of those are damages over $5000... there's a reason why premiums are high. Blame the shitty drivers if you want somebody to accurately blame.

Their record profits in the last 5 years doesn't bother me any either. It should be regulated... before gun control, liquor and tobacco.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Melinda

:rofl: They may not get commission, but their jobs depend on it. My dad used to work for a major insurance company when I was a kid and they used to send them for seminars on how to cheap the client out of money, how to avoid paying out the huge money that they should have. The mantra for nearly every accident was "you're faking it, we know it and we're going to pay you accordingly" no matter what the complaint was. Granted, my dad said they did come across a lot of insurance fraud, but not nearly enough to warrant trying to scam people as badly as they were supposed to as employees of this company.

They must have stoped offering that seminar in the 1970's cause i've never been to, nor heard of it :dunno:

if anything we're loosing money for offering customer service.

goto one of our rely shops and you have rental on your policy? Unlimited rental.

You're obviously not at fault on a tort situation and you have a police report and tp info? Ded is waived.

etc. I could list a dozen more benefits to the insureds which dont "rip off the insured!" ... but this thread is about insurance fraud ;) I dont want to make it to easy

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by Big Dangerous


Their record profits in the last 5 years doesn't bother me any either. It should be regulated... before gun control, liquor and tobacco.


Record profits....that's a laugh....

For 2006 it was reported that the Canadian P&C insurers had a record year generating $2,000,000,000 in profits.

A little perspective here. That is across all of Canada, divided over 200 companies. The Royal Bank (one company) has annual profits in the range of $4,000,000,000.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit



Record profits....that's a laugh....

For 2006 it was reported that the Canadian P&C insurers had a record year generating $2,000,000,000 in profits.

A little perspective here. That is across all of Canada, divided over 200 companies. The Royal Bank (one company) has annual profits in the range of $4,000,000,000.

Banks are a very different business. Insurance companies in Alberta especially are a huge scam. In my opinion, if a person with a clean driving record (both accidents and tickets) all the sudden sees a rate hike due to something out of their control (this legislation, etc) there is something wrong.

Insurance companies here make every effort to rip off clients and there needs to be some radical changes. I'd love to see them start basing rates more on your driving record than random stereotypes (age, sex, etc)

Myself personally, I'd love to see a government insurance company enter the market and start undercutting some of the companies we have now, make them be a little bit more competitive.

[403Gemini]

You have to take "stereotypes" out of the equation. I used to have that EXACT same mindset when i was 18-19. "This isnt fair" blah blah. It's about risk analysis. Blame the people your age who drive like complete shit and ruin your premiums.

edit: Also, has anybody actually ever dealt with ICBC regarding a claim? Christ... id rather talk to the yokels at state farm all day... ;) i kid i kid!

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs


Banks are a very different business. Insurance companies in Alberta especially are a huge scam. In my opinion, if a person with a clean driving record (both accidents and tickets) all the sudden sees a rate hike due to something out of their control (this legislation, etc) there is something wrong.

Insurance companies here make every effort to rip off clients and there needs to be some radical changes. I'd love to see them start basing rates more on your driving record than random stereotypes (age, sex, etc)

Myself personally, I'd love to see a government insurance company enter the market and start undercutting some of the companies we have now, make them be a little bit more competitive.

Wow, you've got a whole six years of driving experience under your belt eh?


lol....being paid on commission....I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A GOVERNMENT AUTO INSURANCE SYSTEM! I would instantly see about a 20% increase in my income.

When comparing ALL auto policy costs, Alberta is cheaper than BC or Saskatchewan. Sure, if you're a 20 year old know-it-all then I guess the government systems are cheaper. However, once you are over 25 and have your shit together, it is much cheaper here.

Every couple of years I do a quote for my Dad who live in Saskatchewan. He's in his late fifties with three vehicles and a boat. We are anywhere from 20% to 30% cheaper than SGI. We also can provide better coverage and if you think claims service is bad here....try dealing with SGI! People are bitching about a $4000 cap for pain & suffering? Try SGI's cap of $0!

[ralliart_girl]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
You have to take "stereotypes" out of the equation. I used to have that EXACT same mindset when i was 18-19. "This isnt fair" blah blah. It's about risk analysis. Blame the people your age who drive like complete shit and ruin your premiums.

edit: Also, has anybody actually ever dealt with ICBC regarding a claim? Christ... id rather talk to the yokels at state farm all day... ;) i kid i kid!

:thumbsup: hahha...

[Dave P]

Haha you guys are pretty funny,


Anyways, I work for a Insurance company (commercial not personal) and this is what we got this morning in a email.


Cap is overturned:

· We expect the decision will be appealed

· We need some time to study the decision to determine what’s next; however…

· We supported the government’s reforms because they provided stability and made auto insurance more affordable in Alberta

· We also believed the reforms were fair to claimants. They ensured that people who suffer sprain and strain injuries like whiplash have access to early treatment and a treatment regimen that is based on the best scientific knowledge.

· The reforms are working. All the evidence points to the conclusion that most people are recovering from sprain and strain injuries a lot faster than they did prior to the reforms.

· We remain committed to the future stability of auto insurance and will work with all stakeholders to find that balance again.



What about insurance companies and profits?

This has nothing to do with insurance company earnings. This is about the effectiveness and fairness of the auto insurance product sold in Alberta and how much drivers are willing to pay.


What about government auto:

Putting auto insurance into the hands of a bureaucratic government monopoly is never a solution. In BC, the average auto insurance premium is higher than it currently is in Alberta. At the same time, the average claims pay-out in BC is much, much lower. In other government-run regimes, the average claims pay-out is even lower. In those provinces there is absolutely no right to sue, no matter how serious the injury. By comparison, Alberta’s auto insurance product has been very generous



What was the cap all about?

The cap simply put a $4,000 cap on the amount that one could claim for pain and suffering when you suffered a minor injury such as a sprain or a strain.

There is still no limit on the amount someone can sue for lost income and any other economic costs from an accident or for the medical and other services one may need to recover from injuries suffered.

Albertans still have the right to sue if they are injured in a car accident that is someone else’s fault. That was not changed.


What were the reforms all about?

The reforms included the cap but also provided for enriched and early health care benefits.

All the research shows that early treatment increases the probability of a rapid recovery and that is what the insurance reforms have tried to encourage - early treatment. Before the reforms, if you were injured you had to wait for approval and often dispute the type and extent of treatment required.

Albertans have a very generous system that provides for injured accident victims. It includes physiotherapy, medications, medical equipment, attendant as well as coverage for lost income and other economic losses.



What will happen with auto insurance premiums? Does this mean that they will go up?


The government’s reform package was concerned primarily with ensuring affordability of auto insurance premiums in Alberta.

Without a key element of this package, it is going to be very difficult to prevent greater costs.

We remain committed to the stability of auto insurance and will work with all stakeholders to find that balance again.

[403Gemini]

^^ :werd:

I dont get why people are up in arms about a $4000 cap... does everybody against the $4000 limit realize its for MINOR injuries, not major injuries? Its not a "this is your $4000 for your broken neck, thats all you get, BITCH!" , its for MINOR sprains and soft tissue damage :rolleyes: I think people just hear "cap" and assume it's all under the same thing

[ralliart_girl]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
^^ :werd:

I dont get why people are up in arms about a $4000 cap... does everybody against the $4000 limit realize its for MINOR injuries, not major injuries? Its not a "this is your $4000 for your broken neck, thats all you get, BITCH!" , its for MINOR sprains and soft tissue damage :rolleyes: I think people just hear "cap" and assume it's all under the same thing

Totally, and I don't really think many people understand the difference between their AB claim and their BI claim. Cause really you have 2 year to claim for any responable medically essential expensives through their AB claim.

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Melinda

:rofl: They may not get commission, but their jobs depend on it. My dad used to work for a major insurance company when I was a kid and they used to send them for seminars on how to cheap the client out of money, how to avoid paying out the huge money that they should have. The mantra for nearly every accident was "you're faking it, we know it and we're going to pay you accordingly" no matter what the complaint was. Granted, my dad said they did come across a lot of insurance fraud, but not nearly enough to warrant trying to scam people as badly as they were supposed to as employees of this company.

Sounds more like the American health insurance system. Sicko anyone?

BTW, what insurance company?

My best friend recently closed operations on his Statefarm branch and I've never heard of him say anything like this in the 5 years he was working.

Private insurance is a business, removing the cap will definitely raise premiums.

[adam c]

^^ my insurance is going down, i called them on friday to get a quote since mine is up for renewal on march 31, went from 188 to 169.. cant complain

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit


Wow, you've got a whole six years of driving experience under your belt eh?


lol....being paid on commission....I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A GOVERNMENT AUTO INSURANCE SYSTEM! I would instantly see about a 20% increase in my income.

When comparing ALL auto policy costs, Alberta is cheaper than BC or Saskatchewan. Sure, if you're a 20 year old know-it-all then I guess the government systems are cheaper. However, once you are over 25 and have your shit together, it is much cheaper here.

Every couple of years I do a quote for my Dad who live in Saskatchewan. He's in his late fifties with three vehicles and a boat. We are anywhere from 20% to 30% cheaper than SGI. We also can provide better coverage and if you think claims service is bad here....try dealing with SGI! People are bitching about a $4000 cap for pain & suffering? Try SGI's cap of $0!

Your right I don't have 40 years driving experience under my belt, but my record is perfect and there is no legitimate reason that I should pay for the rest of the people in my age group, no matter how you cut it that's bogus. If you drive like a retard and get into accidents/rack up tickets, you should pay accordingly and vice versa.

In regards to us being cheaper than Saskatchewan once you break 25, you've got your facts wrong. I have family in Saskatchewan, all in there 40's with terrible driving records (accidents galore and tickets), driving vehicles like envoy's and they still pay less than my mom who drives a vehicle worth far less and has a spotless driving record. I'm not arguing there is a significant drop once you break 25, but the average person here does not pay less than in Saskatchewan.

[Dave P]

Originally posted by Melinda
My dad used to work for a major insurance company when I was a kid and they used to send them for seminars on how to cheap the client out of money, how to avoid paying out the huge money that they should have.




:rolleyes: :rofl:


Come on now, its 2008. not 1980. Anyone who thinks this goes on now, :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut: :nut:

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs


Your right I don't have 40 years driving experience under my belt, but my record is perfect and there is no legitimate reason that I should pay for the rest of the people in my age group, no matter how you cut it that's bogus. If you drive like a retard and get into accidents/rack up tickets, you should pay accordingly and vice versa.

In regards to us being cheaper than Saskatchewan once you break 25, you've got your facts wrong. I have family in Saskatchewan, all in there 40's with terrible driving records (accidents galore and tickets), driving vehicles like envoy's and they still pay less than my mom who drives a vehicle worth far less and has a spotless driving record. I'm not arguing there is a significant drop once you break 25, but the average person here does not pay less than in Saskatchewan.

Now don't take this the wrong way because I'm honestly not picking on you, but unless you work in the Alberta system and have friends doing the same job in the Saskatchewan system, your sample data is too small.

Sure there are always exceptions to be found and I will admit that the government systems are cheaper than the private systems (Alberta or Ontario) for the under 25 set but GENERALLY SPEAKING, we are cheaper than the gov't set ups from 25 - death. So you tell me....do you want to pay extra for the first nine years to save for the following 60 or would you rather go cheap up front and over pay the rest of your life? And like I said before, with SGI (not sure about ICBC), you collect nothing for pain & suffering, never mind a $4000 cap.

Show me any system that a government has run more effeciently than the private sector. Health care? Education? Liquor control? Project construction? It just doesn't happen.

[403Gemini]

As I said to Dave in a pm... its fun watching people who have no knowledge on the topic having a debate with people who know what they're talking about :rofl:

[Masked Bandit]

lol...I know, I know.

But I just can't sit here and let all the brutal misinformation spread about.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
lol...I know, I know.

But I just can't sit here and let all the brutal misinformation spread about.

Oh, i know, i'm the same way.

Like everytime i see on this forum "Parking lot accidents are instant 50/50" ... i want to ban that member...

[rc2002]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs
In my opinion, if a person with a clean driving record (both accidents and tickets) all the sudden sees a rate hike due to something out of their control (this legislation, etc) there is something wrong.


Things like 9/11 that are WAY out of your control are understandable since insurance companies are international.

But having rates go up when someone has to help pay the claims made by other idiot drivers when they've never made a claim themselves is ridiculous. What a great way to reward people for being responsible.

I would support legislation that freezes insurance premiums if a person has not made a claim or gotten any tickets.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Show me any system that a government has run more effeciently than the private sector. Health care? Education? Liquor control? Project construction? It just doesn't happen.

Sask. Land Titles! :D Faster, more efficient, more secure against fraud and more accessible than any other land jurisdiction in the country! Some countries that are looking to overhaul their systems have said it's the single best system in the world. But, that's the only one I can think of!

[ralliart_girl]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


Oh, i know, i'm the same way.

Like everytime i see on this forum "Parking lot accidents are instant 50/50" ... i want to ban that member...

haha...the worse is when you try to explain this to your family and friends, and they just argue with u.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


Things like 9/11 that are WAY out of your control are understandable since insurance companies are international.

But having rates go up when someone has to help pay the claims made by other idiot drivers when they've never made a claim themselves is ridiculous. What a great way to reward people for being responsible.

I would support legislation that freezes insurance premiums if a person has not made a claim or gotten any tickets.

In a perfect world yes :(

It'd be nice if we could charge 10,000/yr to drivers who have SHITTY records instead of the liberalism of spreading the cost between many users. But it won't happen sadly

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Sask. Land Titles! :D Faster, more efficient, more secure against fraud and more accessible than any other land jurisdiction in the country! Some countries that are looking to overhaul their systems have said it's the single best system in the world. But, that's the only one I can think of!



That's because there are only 23 people in the whole province...






I kid, I kid. I can say that because I'm from there.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by richardchan2002


Things like 9/11 that are WAY out of your control are understandable since insurance companies are international.

But having rates go up when someone has to help pay the claims made by other idiot drivers when they've never made a claim themselves is ridiculous. What a great way to reward people for being responsible.

I would support legislation that freezes insurance premiums if a person has not made a claim or gotten any tickets.

:werd: Responsible drivers get beat by the average habits of drivers their age, the insurance companies more less take the individual right out of the equation.



Originally posted by Masked Bandit


Now don't take this the wrong way because I'm honestly not picking on you, but unless you work in the Alberta system and have friends doing the same job in the Saskatchewan system, your sample data is too small.

Sure there are always exceptions to be found and I will admit that the government systems are cheaper than the private systems (Alberta or Ontario) for the under 25 set but GENERALLY SPEAKING, we are cheaper than the gov't set ups from 25 - death. So you tell me....do you want to pay extra for the first nine years to save for the following 60 or would you rather go cheap up front and over pay the rest of your life? And like I said before, with SGI (not sure about ICBC), you collect nothing for pain & suffering, never mind a $4000 cap.

Show me any system that a government has run more effeciently than the private sector. Health care? Education? Liquor control? Project construction? It just doesn't happen.

I know that you work in the industry and are far more familiar with its inner workings here in Alberta but don't assume that I am just pulling numbers out of the air for sake of argument, my uncle works for SGI out of Saskatoon. I can't comment on whether you are right or wrong about insurance being cheaper ON AVERAGE once your older than 25 but it doesn't change the fact that new drivers "subsidizing" insurance rates for older drivers (as you suggested happens above) is wrong and the individuals driving record needs to be the basis for their payments.

Clearly you've reached an age where you've seen your rates decline and I would assume you likely receive a substantial insurance discount as an employee but let me try and apply this same logic to something you can likely appreciate.

The insurance companies in effect are stating that any person of X age drives the same on average, so they should be charged the same rates (take note that the individual has been removed from the process). Now what would you think about the government using the same type of logic when it comes to collecting income taxes? Rather than having you file all of your information relating to income they just assume that because you are age X you should be making the average for Canadians of age X, and they tax you accordingly. This would be a pretty terrible situation if they determine that the average income is $75,000 and their taxing you on that amount but you're only making $50,000 hey? That's exactly what insurance companies are doing to young drivers here.

[403Gemini]

BrknFngrs, no point in really arguing it. Blame the shitty drivers in your age demographic. THEY are the ones who are identifying you as a risk, a potential expense. Im not saying you are, not by any means - and yes it's unfair , but its not a stereotype, its not prejudice... risk analysis is backed up with YEARS of facts.

Edit: im sure people who are 25-26 will agree, they are a MUCH better driver now than they were when they were 16-20

[Dave P]

Plain and Simple the $4000 cap on soft tissue injury pain and suffering was struck down by the courts on Friday. The government said that if this occurred they would re-write the legislation but with an election call, nothing will happen right away. The government also said that they will review the case to see if an appeal is possible or at the very least a 'stay' meaning that the cap will remain in place until such time as an appeal is heard.

This could have serious repercussions for everyone. It makes auto insurance an election issue and as per usual the insurance companies are seen as the bad guys because the cap was good for us and hurt the little guy. At least that is what the media is saying already. If the decision is upheld, premiums will rise in order to offset the potential of increased claims cost. However, that is a lengthy process and involves full rate filings. Further, insurance companies have no control over GRID rates and they will have to rise too, the government would have to do that and of course, little will happen until well after the election.

Case Closed. haha

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
BrknFngrs, no point in really arguing it. Blame the shitty drivers in your age demographic. THEY are the ones who are identifying you as a risk, a potential expense. Im not saying you are, not by any means - and yes it's unfair , but its not a stereotype, its not prejudice... risk analysis is backed up with YEARS of facts.

Edit: im sure people who are 25-26 will agree, they are a MUCH better driver now than they were when they were 16-20

Your missing my point, I'm not saying it is not statistically supported, or that people my age ON AVERAGE are worse drivers than their older counterparts, I'm sure they are. What I have a problem with is taking individuals completely out of the process, why "punish" the good drivers? Regardless of statistical support the views your promoting ARE prejudical and stereotypical. Most stereotypes are rooted in fact after all.

Also, the comparison that I posted before this that was never addressed, does that not seem unreasonable? I'm sure everyone would complain if that were the case (it too could be supported by basic statistics such as average Canadian Income based on age) yet this is exactly what insurance companies do that you are defending. I know that it's the way it is and it is unlikely to change in a private industry but the fact that some people are actually trying to defend this type of policy surprises me. Can you imagine if insurance companies attempted to charge higher premiums based on ethnicity, there would be outrage, yet it's discrimination just the same.

[ralliart_girl]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs


Your missing my point, I'm not saying it is not statistically supported, or that people my age ON AVERAGE are worse drivers than their older counterparts, I'm sure they are. What I have a problem with is taking individuals completely out of the process, why "punish" the good drivers? Regardless of statistical support the views your promoting ARE prejudical and stereotypical. Most stereotypes are rooted in fact after all.

Also, the comparison that I posted before this that was never addressed, does that not seem unreasonable? I'm sure everyone would complain if that were the case (it too could be supported by basic statistics such as average Canadian Income based on age) yet this is exactly what insurance companies do that you are defending. I know that it's the way it is and it is unlikely to change in a private industry but the fact that some people are actually trying to defend this type of policy surprises me. Can you imagine if insurance companies attempted to charge higher premiums based on ethnicity, there would be outrage, yet it's discrimination just the same.

Dude, I think you are missing the point. Think of it more like this...everyone starts at a point, and if you continue to have a good driving record, than your rates will decline...

The other thing is, you can't compare apples to oranges. Insurance provides coverage, so of course they have to use stat caluclations to determine their "possible" risks. Does taxes do that? From what I know, taxes are collected and than the government applies it to areas they see fit. So you are really talking about two different things that can't be compared.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs


Your missing my point, I'm not saying it is not statistically supported, or that people my age ON AVERAGE are worse drivers than their older counterparts, I'm sure they are. What I have a problem with is taking individuals completely out of the process, why "punish" the good drivers? Regardless of statistical support the views your promoting ARE prejudical and stereotypical. Most stereotypes are rooted in fact after all.

Also, the comparison that I posted before this that was never addressed, does that not seem unreasonable? I'm sure everyone would complain if that were the case (it too could be supported by basic statistics such as average Canadian Income based on age) yet this is exactly what insurance companies do that you are defending. I know that it's the way it is and it is unlikely to change in a private industry but the fact that some people are actually trying to defend this type of policy surprises me. Can you imagine if insurance companies attempted to charge higher premiums based on ethnicity, there would be outrage, yet it's discrimination just the same.

Honestly, you're making it sound like you're the only person that is going through this, or has been through this.

We've all been there, we've all bitched about it, but i can guarantee down the road you'll understand why.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by ralliart_girl


Dude, I think you are missing the point. Think of it more like this...everyone starts at a point, and if you continue to have a good driving record, than your rates will decline...

The other thing is, you can't compare apples to oranges. Insurance provides coverage, so of course they have to use stat caluclations to determine their "possible" risks. Does taxes do that? From what I know, taxes are collected and than the government applies it to areas they see fit. So you are really talking about two different things that can't be compared.

Did you even read the comparison I made? Here, I'll walk ya through step by step so you don't get confused.

"...everyone has a starting point" = the $75,000 I used in my example (and this could be found using statistics, since that seems to be everyones excuse for the insane prices for young drivers here)

"..if you continue to have a good driving record, than your rates will decline.." = if your not making $75,000 right now, were going to tax you as if you were but once you make more it will be alright for you.

As for using stats for coverage, ya know whats actually more accurate than applying blanket averages to a group? Using reality and individual's records.


Originally posted by 403Gemini


Honestly, you're making it sound like you're the only person that is going through this, or has been through this.

We've all been there, we've all bitched about it, but i can guarantee down the road you'll understand why.

I fully understand that I'm not the only one getting the shaft from insurance companies based on my age, but that doesn't change the fact that its illogical. I assure you I "understand why", but the reality is that even if every single person in an age group EXCEPT ONE is going out every day trying to write off their vehicle that individual who isn't shouldn't be charged because everyone else is. Which I'm sure you would agree with.

[ralliart_girl]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs


Did you even read the comparison I made? Here, I'll walk ya through step by step so you don't get confused.

"...everyone has a starting point" = the $75,000 I used in my example (and this could be found using statistics, since that seems to be everyones excuse for the insane prices for young drivers here)

"..if you continue to have a good driving record, than your rates will decline.." = if your not making $75,000 right now, were going to tax you as if you were but once you make more it will be alright for you.

As for using stats for coverage, ya know whats actually more accurate than applying blanket averages to a group? Using reality and individual's records.



I fully understand that I'm not the only one getting the shaft from insurance companies based on my age, but that doesn't change the fact that its illogical. I assure you I "understand why", but the reality is that even if every single person in an age group EXCEPT ONE is going out every day trying to write off their vehicle that individual who isn't shouldn't be charged because everyone else is. Which I'm sure you would agree with.

seriously....:banghead:

[spikerS]

insurance companies are basically the only ones that can get away with discrimination, racisim, sexual orientation ect.

because they can justify this, we have to suck it up with high premiums for everyone, because they just say, the numbers don't lie.

[ralliart_girl]

maybe if you guys don't like it so much, you should just not purchase it anymore....oh wait...you can't......

ok, lets just go back to whinning about it...

[Dave P]

:D

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs



I fully understand that I'm not the only one getting the shaft from insurance companies based on my age, but that doesn't change the fact that its illogical. I assure you I "understand why", but the reality is that even if every single person in an age group EXCEPT ONE is going out every day trying to write off their vehicle that individual who isn't shouldn't be charged because everyone else is. Which I'm sure you would agree with.

When you develop a system where you can evaluate every single person that is insured, on a perfect 1 on 1 basis , i'm sure you will make millions.

Good luck on your quest good sir!


Lemmiwinks you are coming to the entrance of the small intestant

there you must seek out the sparrow prince



the sparrow prince lies somewhere way up ahead

dont look back Lemmiwinks or youll soon be dead

Lemmiwinks Lemmiwinks the time is growing late

slow down now and seal your fate



SPARROW PRINCE:

i am the sparrow prince

long has my spirit been trapped in this place

before you lies the maze of the small intestants

one path leads to te stomach the other to certain doom

take with you this helmet and torch

let them be your guide



take the magic helmet torch to help you light the way

theres still alot of ground to cross inside the man so gay

ahead of you lies adventure and your strength still lies within

freedom from the ass of doom is the treasure you will win



Lemmiwinks came to the stomach god

beneath the depths of the lungs and heart



CATATAFISH:

you chose your path wisely Lemmiwinks

i am the catatafish



Catatafish of the stomach's cove



CATATAFISH:

if you answer this riddle the esophagas will let you pass



catatafish's riddle will soon be told



TALKING:

hang on Lemmiwinks

you solved the catatafish's riddle

now your trials are nearly through



Lemmiwinks has made it out

the tale is nearly through



great job Lemmiwinks



thanks to you we are all free



but your adventures are just begining

for you are no ordinary gerbil Lemmiwinks

you are the gerbil king



ALL HAIL THE GERBIL KING



now the ger the gerbil king has more adventures to go on

fly away to faraway lands into the setting sun

theres still so many enemies and battles yet to fight

for Lemmiwinks the gerbil king is to be told another night

[Masked Bandit]

Sometimes it's impossible to educate someone so I'm going to stop trying.

It's unfortunate that it has come to this but really,

You're going to buy our product whether you like it or not. So bitch all you want BUT PAY UP AND SHUT UP!

If it's all so great in BC or SK there are highways leading to both. Let me know what you think of the tax load in your government run Havens.


I'm done.

[403Gemini]

Agree, i complained enough when i was 17-19, but i understand it now. :dunno:

Think all of us in the insurance industry should go for beers :D

[Dave P]

Can we pay for them with all the money we are stealing?

[rc2002]

Moral of the story:

1.) Buy a worthless beater car that costs only $700/year for liability insurance
2.) Brake check an expensive luxury car when the driver isn't paying attention and collect damages from "soft tissue injuries"
3.) Repeat steps 1 and 2 from time to time when you're running low on funds

The returns are unreal. $700/year could net you thousands of dollars in tax free gains. Best of all your insurance rate doesn't go up because you never make a claim.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by Dave P
Can we pay for them with all the money we are stealing?


That......was......GOLD!