[e90335iftw]

I ended up going into a ditch and my front bumper got damaged pretty bad. If I go through my insurance would my premiums go up by any chance? I want to say it was a hit and run but technically it wasn't because the guy cut me off and I got forced off the road. To make things worse, he didn't stop. Kept going.

[edirtaynine]

non-collision hit and run. dunno if they have that in canada though.

[MrDummy]

I have broadside collision coverage which would cover that but in USA. Dont know about Canada?

[Turb0Surge]

[John 070]

I don't understand why rates would not go up. Are you fellas saying it's a comp claim, like hitting a deer? Insurance is profitable and suspicious by design, they are always quick to suspect fraud.

Not necessarily the case in the OP's scenario, but sometimes I wonder if going off the road is due to an overreaction, rather than being "forced." I mean "forced" is what you see on tv, where one vehicle pushes the other off the road.

I mean yesterday morning, I saw this lame a** X3 cut across 5 lanes of traffic to get onto the bridge, then he cuts across another 3 and was seemingly going to make contact with my car. I didn't flinch and laid on my horn. The guy who was ***** and looked like a ****** flipped me off and switched back to the far left lane. If I had crashed, would it be reasonable to expect my insurance to cover it without raising my rates?

[John 070]

Originally Posted by edirtaynine

non-collision hit and run. dunno if they have that in canada though.

Isn't hit and run when another vehicle makes contact, and drives away?

[edirtaynine]

Originally Posted by John 070

Isn't hit and run when another vehicle makes contact, and drives away?

yes thats what a "hit and run" is. but a non-collision hit and run is where a person causes another driver to collide into another vehicle/wall/object/whatever without hitting them with their own car directly. for example, if some jackass swerves into you and you swerve away and hit the center divider, thats a non-collision hit and run since that jackass never actually hit your car with theirs. this is covered under the UM/UIM coverage on the policy (or Collision coverage if the insured doesnt have "UM/UIM").

[Yeoman]

Originally Posted by e90335iftw

I ended up going into a ditch and my front bumper got damaged pretty bad. If I go through my insurance would my premiums go up by any chance? I want to say it was a hit and run but technically it wasn't because the guy cut me off and I got forced off the road. To make things worse, he didn't stop. Kept going.

Going 50 in the left lane?

[GChase]

Yes your rates will go up... No way in hell your insurance company will pay for it for free without raising any of your premiums. Since you didn't get the guy's tag, you don't have proof, and technically the guy didn't hit you and you wrecked your own car, you won't have a chance in getting off scot-free. If somehow you got off without your rates going up then everyone would say they got in a hit and run when they hit a guardrail or something.

In my opinion, if it's just the front bumper, I wouldn't go through insurance. We have to see pics though to judge. Just get an awesome mtech bumper or something, thus turning a bad situation into a positive one. Also, there are tons of bumpers either used on here or junkyards that you could get on the cheap instead. Painting is a bit pricy though ($400-600). Good luck!

[edirtaynine]

Originally Posted by GChase

Yes your rates will go up... No way in hell your insurance company will pay for it for free without raising any of your premiums. Since you didn't get the guy's tag, you don't have proof, and technically the guy didn't hit you and you wrecked your own car, you won't have a chance in getting off scot-free. If somehow you got off without your rates going up then everyone would say they got in a hit and run when they hit a guardrail or something.

In my opinion, if it's just the front bumper, I wouldn't go through insurance. We have to see pics though to judge. Just get an awesome mtech bumper or something, thus turning a bad situation into a positive one. Also, there are tons of bumpers either used on here or junkyards that you could get on the cheap instead. Painting is a bit pricy though ($400-600). Good luck!

oh yeah. you definitely will need the other guy's info of some sort AND a police report.

otherwise it's your fault. lol

[ChasVS]

Doesn't matter if you were forced off the road, or just lost control all by yourself. An insurance claim will cause your rates to increase.

[bulldog_yyc]

If you live in Ontario (the insurance robbery capital of north america) you rates will go up for certain. I had the same thing happen to me, in fact it resulted in a near write off (not a BMW thank god) and it was deemed to be my fault because the other party sped away and insurance considered it an at fault claim. In fact the agent went as far as saying that had I let the aggressive driver hit my vehicle and make contact (even if it was a small scratch) it would have been the other drivers fault and even under the same scenario where they got away, it would have been classified as a non at fault claim. I even had a police report and witnesses to back up my story but the insurance co did not care; cops couldnt find other driver, had no plate number to go on.....

The insurance industry in ontario is a complete joke - I would recommend not making a claim unless the costs to repair are many multiples of your deductable. Good luck!

BTW, if its just the front bumper and no other damage, you could get it re-painted (~500) or get a new bumper (perhaps an m3 or mtech rep) plus paint for about ~$1000 - hope that helps with making your decision.

[kfriceman]

Originally Posted by e90335iftw

I ended up going into a ditch and my front bumper got damaged pretty bad. If I go through my insurance would my premiums go up by any chance? I want to say it was a hit and run but technically it wasn't because the guy cut me off and I got forced off the road. To make things worse, he didn't stop. Kept going.

Why would you not go through your insurance, thats why you have it......so you don't have to pay out of pocket. Could your rates go up, myaybe, probably or not...call a find out and if so who cares.

Get your car fixed and move on....life is short and you are still alive....be happy for that.

-Kevin

[John 070]

Originally Posted by kfriceman

Why would you not go through your insurance, thats why you have it......so you don't have to pay out of pocket. Could your rates go up, myaybe, probably or not...call a find out and if so who cares.

Get your car fixed and move on....life is short and you are still alive....be happy for that.

-Kevin

That's the irony of it. Take homeowner's for example, your hot water heater bursts, damages the floor, you file a claim, after your $500 deductible you get a check for $700. Next year, you're dropped or your rate goes up 18% (lose your claim free discount). In a mere 3 years, your $700 benefit is negated by increased premiums. imho the reason for the insurance is when you suffer a catastrophe, it can cost 500k to rebuild your home. That's when you take your 499,500 claim payment and could care less about being dropped or rates going up.

The OP's story already sounds "interesting" to an insurance co.

[edirtaynine]

Originally Posted by John 070

That's the irony of it. Take homeowner's for example, your hot water heater bursts, damages the floor, you file a claim, after your $500 deductible you get a check for $700. Next year, you're dropped or your rate goes up 18% (lose your claim free discount). In a mere 3 years, your $700 benefit is negated by increased premiums. imho the reason for the insurance is when you suffer a catastrophe, it can cost 500k to rebuild your home. That's when you take your 499,500 claim payment and could care less about being dropped or rates going up.

The OP's story already sounds "interesting" to an insurance co.

pretty much.

[John 070]

Originally Posted by bulldog x6

If you live in Ontario (the insurance robbery capital of north america) you rates will go up for certain. I had the same thing happen to me, in fact it resulted in a near write off (not a BMW thank god) and it was deemed to be my fault because the other party sped away and insurance considered it an at fault claim. In fact the agent went as far as saying that had I let the aggressive driver hit my vehicle and make contact (even if it was a small scratch) it would have been the other drivers fault and even under the same scenario where they got away, it would have been classified as a non at fault claim. I even had a police report and witnesses to back up my story but the insurance co did not care; cops couldnt find other driver, had no plate number to go on.....

The insurance industry in ontario is a complete joke - I would recommend not making a claim unless the costs to repair are many multiples of your deductable. Good luck!

BTW, if its just the front bumper and no other damage, you could get it re-painted (~500) or get a new bumper (perhaps an m3 or mtech rep) plus paint for about ~$1000 - hope that helps with making your decision.

I kind of get where insurance is coming from. Think of it this way. With life insurance, your interest is aligned with theirs. You want to live, you never want your family to have to collect, and it's obvious to anybody with common sense, that your interests are in perfect alignment. With a car, all bets are off. Believe it or not, some people file false claims to get money, a new car, repair existing damage, etc. So insurance does not feel that the insured are actually helping them. So they label a hit and run as an "at fault" accident to the victim. Is it right? No. But we have to realize it's a business. It's like Disney taking your money when you didn't reach the port in time to get on the cruise ship. Disney is made up of nice people, right? Wrong, it's a business.

[bulldog_yyc]

Originally Posted by John 070

I kind of get where insurance is coming from. Think of it this way. With life insurance, your interest is aligned with theirs. You want to live, you never want your family to have to collect, and it's obvious to anybody with common sense, that your interests are in perfect alignment. With a car, all bets are off. Believe it or not, some people file false claims to get money, a new car, repair existing damage, etc. So insurance does not feel that the insured are actually helping them. So they label a hit and run as an "at fault" accident to the victim. Is it right? No. But we have to realize it's a business. It's like Disney taking your money when you didn't reach the port in time to get on the cruise ship. Disney is made up of nice people, right? Wrong, it's a business.

Trust me, I understand the notion of profit and am an avid capitalist (I work on the "street").

Insurance is about profit, while minimizing risk. In fact, there are many regulations and laws about how much risk minimization insurance companies must take part in. For all of the liabilities (potential pay outs) there are matching assets (long term bonds for example for life insurance). Premiums are collected and re-invested to match assets and liability durations. There are rules about what types of assets those can be depending on portfolio size etc etc.

Without boring everyone to death about finance theory, the fact is that insurance rates in ontario are well above north american comps. The reasoning is that there are high incidences of fraud (as you point out). For example:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...55534169,d.dmQ
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/22...dly-surprising
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/autoinsu...al-report.html

In fact here is the most famous auto insurance fraud that happened recently:

Anyways - the point of the matter is that in my view, insurance companies have basically taken the gloves off. Since there are so many defrauding the system, they have raised rates across the board impacting everyone involved. While the approach of spreading risk across a number of people sounds interesting, it comes at the expense of punishing the folks who take extra care and are better performing drivers. In fact, I think the true chronic issue is a combination of poor oversight by insurance companies themselves (to help combat fraud), as well as the enforcement agencies.

At the end of the day though, we pay some of the highest insurance rates in all of north america and you cant help but wonder how much "extra" profit/juice is being squeezed out above and beyond what is expected from running an insurance/underwriting business. It appears however that the enforcement agencies have been cracking down and actually being active in trying to foster change in the system so this is certainly positive.

[John 070]

Originally Posted by bulldog x6

At the end of the day though, we pay some of the highest insurance rates in all of north america and you cant help but wonder how much "extra" profit/juice is being squeezed out above and beyond what is expected from running an insurance/underwriting business. It appears however that the enforcement agencies have been cracking down and actually being active in trying to foster change in the system so this is certainly positive.

Have you ever seen or heard of how insurance execs live? Puts the CEOs of the Goldman Sachs of the world to shame. Armored vehicles with security details? What a joke. Example? An insurance co. based in MN. I dunno about you, but I've never heard of ninja assassins killing or attacking anybody in Minnesota. I kid you not, security detail? Your mutual dollars are paying for that extravagance.

Hey, we shop around for an employer who provides decent health insurance, we can certainly shop around and use our heads when it comes to auto insurance. Of course except in states like MA, where you can shop all you want and the rate was identical for decades up to two years ago. Today, the have "managed competition." WTF? Competition has to be managed? Yep, Mitt Romney style.

[crashoverride]

Wait you drive a BMW and got forced off the road..... Uhm time to get an OLDsmobile.

You've brought great shame to the BMW driver persona....lol

[E90_boostjunky]

Might as well spend $1,000 on a new m3 rep bumper. Your gonna end up paying a 500$ deductible and plus ur insurance will go up, in the end it's the same. Just my .02

[bulldog_yyc]

Originally Posted by E90_boostjunky

Might as well spend $1,000 on a new m3 rep bumper. Your gonna end up paying a 500$ deductible and plus ur insurance will go up, in the end it's the same. Just my .02

agreed

[bulldog_yyc]

Originally Posted by John 070

Have you ever seen or heard of how insurance execs live? Puts the CEOs of the Goldman Sachs of the world to shame. Armored vehicles with security details? What a joke. Example? An insurance co. based in MN. I dunno about you, but I've never heard of ninja assassins killing or attacking anybody in Minnesota. I kid you not, security detail? Your mutual dollars are paying for that extravagance.

Hey, we shop around for an employer who provides decent health insurance, we can certainly shop around and use our heads when it comes to auto insurance. Of course except in states like MA, where you can shop all you want and the rate was identical for decades up to two years ago. Today, the have "managed competition." WTF? Competition has to be managed? Yep, Mitt Romney style.

Well i can respect some executives that get comp'ed - if they have performed and exceeded their objectives, the stock outperformed, its perfectly acceptable that they get paid for their hard work. Being a CEO/CFO/COO whatever is actually much more difficult than what people think. Yes, there is a posh lifestyle (comes with the territory) but its not all fun and games. The CEO's of large corporations dont have any life outside of work. I dont really care what they tell magazines or newspapers about work life balance but there is no such thing. CEO's are at the end of the day the one person responsible for the success or downfall of a company and this responsibility almost always is the priority over things life family, social life etc etc. So - that being said, the risk/reward philosophy would say they should be adequately compensated.

HOWEVER, it would outrage me as a shareholder of any company, if the CEO was being paid and not delivering any value, or god forbid, destroying it.

Anyways - yeah I hear ya man, some of those guys should not be getting paid that type of coin for poor performance...... I agree it is quite excessive at times.