Home Insurance Rates - Are yours increasing dramatically?

[Tokyo Heights]

In Ontario Insurance Companies are another pain in the Ass! Hope Mr. Tim Hudak soon takes over our Province and works on these Gian Scam Companies, and regulates them to some extent, they are ripping the residents of Ontario since a long time! We need strict goverance in our Province of Ontario so the long time harassed residents can get some sigh of relief from such scammers in their lives or else we are going to go bankrupt soon with such heavy taxes on every step of our lives, that its hard to match earnings with expences these day's in present provincial set-up's bad goverance~

 

[nottyboi]

In Ontario Insurance Companies are another pain in the Ass! Hope Mr. Tim Hudak soon takes over our Province and works on these Gian Scam Companies, and regulates them to some extent, they are ripping the residents of Ontario since a long time! We need strict goverance in our Province of Ontario so the long time harassed residents can get some sigh of relief from such scammers in their lives or else we are going to go bankrupt soon with such heavy taxes on every step of our lives, that its hard to match earnings with expences these day's in present provincial set-up's bad goverance~

Are you kidding? If ANYONE is gonna be in the pocket of insurance companies and business it is Hudak.

 

[nottyboi]

My broker IS TD Meloche Monnex. They use "Security National" for all their insurance as far as I am aware.

I will give Desjardins a call, maybe others as well. Right now, supposedly I have the "Platinum Coverage" I could reduce it to "Gold coverage" and save 80 bucks a year.

Big fucking deal.

When I do shop it around - I just want to make sure that I'm getting the same coverage more or less. I don't have any jewelry in the house whatsoever, never keep cash in the house, really, just a couple of computers and a lot of tools. I can't see a thief carrying my sofa out the door.

TD tried to tell me that they increased the rebuilding cost on my house by 30 grand and that rebuilding costs had increased. I know for a fact that that is horeshit. The value in my house is in the land, not in the structure.

I switched to them after Allstate tried to screw me... so far so good. I assume they will try and fuck me on renewal. Esp. Now that I moved my car insurance to them so if I move my home, they will yank the auto discount... fuckers... if they try that on me, I will cancel anyway and move my cars next year.

 

[fun-guy]

There you go talking out your creampie hole again.

I KNOW Tim Hudak and that is not in his character.

I also know John Tory personally and listened to crap like this said about him and time has proven he is in no one's pocket.

I agree, I don't know where in the world anyone would think Hudak is in the pocket of insurance companies, udder nonsense.

 

[fun-guy]

All insurance rates are bound to increase dramatically over the next couple of years.

Reason is that insurance companies make a substantial portion of profit from stock market returns. But since the stock market tanked a while ago, they're not getting those double-digit returns any more and now cry the blues that premiums aren't covering costs.

It's not only stock returns, all their investment returns in general are not as they expected.

I've always thought that the insurance industry is one big Ponzi scheme anyway.

 

[nottyboi]

I agree, I don't know where in the world anyone would think Hudak is in the pocket of insurance companies, udder nonsense.

They all start out that way....

 

[Cassini]

I agree, I don't know where in the world anyone would think Hudak is in the pocket of insurance companies, udder nonsense.

It's not the politician that is in the insurance industries pocket, it is the 20 or so political operatives working to get them elected. Access is about making sure the 20 conservative insiders, the 20 liberal insiders, and/or the 20 Bloc/NDP insiders (depending on province/government) are in your pocket. Then when it comes time to ask for a favourable amendment, the people with access are on the inside track. It doesn't even matter which party wins the election. The smart company supports everyone.

 

[Cassini]

Has your home insurance gone up 70% in the last 2 years?

Finished basements is really popular right now, and so is selling sewer backup and water damage insurance. At the same time, municipalities are struggling to maintain sewer, road, and water main infrastructure. Home insurance claims must be increasing.

I would look hard at the water damage waver portions of the insurance.

 

[james t kirk]

^^^^^ Add a simple backflow preventer to your plumbing and save the ordeal.

http://www.backwater-valves.com/

All homes should have one as far as I can see.

 

[red]

My home insurance renewal just came in.

Another $200.00 increase over last year, which was a $200.00 increase over the year before.

Almost a 70% increase in 2 years. They now want a grand a year, whereas in 2008 it was $600.

Last year they told me that they had added a water ingress rider on my package (that I didn't ask for and I assumed I was covered for - wrong.)

I called up to complain and after talking to 2 different people (and listening to the song and dance about coverage and rebuilding costs, blah blah bah) I finally got transfered to a guy who was in charge. He said, in so many words, that the Insurers lost money last year on Home insurance to the tune of about $1.26 out for every $1.00 in. Like it or not, Home Insurance rates are going up. In fact, he said that Home Isurance rates are poised to DOUBLE in the next 5 years.

Holy fuck on that.

My question to the peanut gallery (homeowners) is:

Has your home insurance gone up 70% in the last 2 years?

thats weird mine went down 200 each of the last two years

 

[great bear]

thats weird mine went down 200 each of the last two years

Trailers are cheap to insure.

 

[rld]

There you go talking out your creampie hole again.

I KNOW Tim Hudak and that is not in his character.

I also know John Tory personally and listened to crap like this said about him and time has proven he is in no one's pocket.

Funny, I also know Tim Hudak and know him to be well informed on the auto portfolio and I believe has a thoughtful and considered mind on these issues.

I also know John Tory and, with great respect, he was a stooge for the auto insurers. They misled him into a significant overhaul of the ontario auto system, which he did after the writ had dropped, by regulation not by vote which screwed the Ontario consumer.

Personally I think Hudak has learned to distrust auto insurers because of the way they dealt with Tory.

Anyways, I don't think the answer is public auto. I think we need two changes to move ontario insurance in the right direction. First should be a transparent rate setting system, like the one in California, so the public can see and explore what is really going on. Second is an elected Insurance Commissioner who is responsible for the issue for Ontarians. Studies in US states show that premiums are lower and the product better in states with elected commissioners over appointed ones.

That would be a good start anyways.

 

[Ref]

Strange timing of the thread.

I just got my annual insurance form and it increased by $200 (never had a claim on any type of insurance). The big increase seems to be in the replacement cost...It increased by $100K. What a crock of shit.

The quote from TD came in at what I was paying last year.

Time to switch the house insurance coverage

 

[red]

Trailers are cheap to insure.

not during tornado season

 

[Moraff]

Mine just went down. When I called up to change the vehicles on my auto policy last fall, the agent noticed I hadn't done their quiz regarding my house insurance that they had sent out (and was still sitting in my pile of getting around to it some day ) and offered to go through it with me now. By updating the info on the renos I had done he was able to offer me a break on my premiums that they were just going to send me for the new year.

2010: $708.48 13.9% increase
2011: $590.52 16.6% decrease

 

[poseidol]

I don't know if it's been mentioned but I've used kanetix.ca to shop around for the best insurance rates. Staying on topic, my house insurance rate has stayed the same.

 

[rld]

So you would agree that he is not in their back pocket and that the CreamPieHole is oozing again?




On the first point, I don't think you are saying anything contrary to my saying he is also not in anyone's "back pocket"? Maybe he was their stooge because he believed their pitch, not that they paid him.

I'm a bit confused on the second point though. Are you referring to his stint as Prinicipal Secretary working in Premier Davis' office in the early 80's? Otherwise I don't think he was ever in a position to "overhaul" the insurance system. I admit that I don;t know enough to say so but I don't know that he did. Can you expand on this?

If by "back pocket" someone means that he got a bribe or inducement, I have never heard anything to that effect and suspect I would. At best though, he would be considered gullible and really drank the industry Kool-Aid. Whether he was induced or just made an error makes no difference to me as a member of the driving public, it still resulted in a worse system for more money.

My understanding is that he was heavily involved in this issue during the Eves stump period, which of course means Ernie should take a lot more of the blame, but he had not been brought up.

 

[rld]

This is correct. The principle of insurance is sound, such as protection against catastrophic loss and distributed risk management (as in public health). But we allowed ourselves, because we are fucking stupid, to let this principle get implemented by private companies aiming only for profit. Now, few of us will ever get a return on investment. Witness motorcycle insurance, which is ridiculously priced and you will quickly pay for a new bike before you have even scratched your wheels or your leg. But I'm not even sure bitching about no return on investment scratches the surface of what is wrong with how insurance is being implemented. Quite simply, insurance for profit fails to satisfy distributed risk management for innumerable reasons, but beginning with the way insurance (for profit) just drives up associated costs and provides little protection against moral hazard on the part of the insurers (witness their shady small print bullshit and premiums increasing if you so much as fart). I think private insurers have had their chance, they bungled it, and we should get rid of them. Bright sparks should make public insurance work.

There is nothing wrong with private insurance companies per se.

There is nothing wrong with private insurers making profits per se.

The problem is when insurers start to mis-design the product so that they can make unprecedented underwriting profits to make up for their poor investments, on a product that is, effectively, publically mandated.

When I am pitching this issue I remind the MPPs that they have effectively funded a bail out of insurer investments and ask them when they will be doing so for my RRSP.

 

[rld]

Rid, with due respect, I think your position is incoherent.

First, an analogy. Four dudes walk into a bar. The first says "it's so hot out there, like 500 degrees. We gotta do something about the greenhouse effect." The second says "who cares about the heat, it's the terrible flying conditions when I travel. We gotta do something about the sulfuric acid in the clouds." The third says "I hate how walking around is like being a kilometer underwater. We gotta fix this 96% carbon dioxide atmosphere and reduce the pressure". The fourth says "shut up, fools, the problem stems from the decision we made to immigrate to Venus".

Don't complain about the off-shoots of private insurance without addressing that private insurance itself might be a bad idea.

Also, Rid, note I specifically said the principle of insurance is sound, but private insurance is a stupid way to implement it. When you say private insurance companies pursuing unprecedented profits is the problem, well how exactly do you propose to prevent that without having some system which incorporates public control of private activity, which last time I checked, is a move away from private insurance.

I think the difference is I actually know what I am talking about, and you are talking about theory without understanding how the system actually works. The system in Ontario already has all of the government controls it needs, it is just not functioning properly. Abandon the world of theory with me for a moment and join me in the real world and I think you will learn something.

Insurance is sold by private companies in Ontario.

However, what goes into the product is directed by the government, that is the terms of all policies are either drafted by the government or approved by the government.

Then the private insurers decide what they need to charge for the product to make a fair profit, but the government must approve the rates (particularly for auto) before they go out.

So the private companies apply to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario for approval of rate increases, which, the government appointees review in a closed process and either approve or decline the proposed rate increase.

From time to time, the government will pass a regulation that will limit premiums with some sort of a cap on growth (which was actually the first reg passed when McGuinty came into office).

Now, real insurance, traditionally creates underwriting losses, that is claims cost more than premiums collected, but about 2-5%. The insurer makes money by investing your premiums and making about 12-18% on their investments over the delay between premium collection and claims payment. So in traditional insurance the underwriting side of the leger should show a loss.

Unfortunately between 2002-now in Ontario insurers, over the very loud objections of consumer/victim advocates, convinced weak leadership as FSCO that they should allow rate increases that included underwriting profits which has lead to many years of unprecedented insurer profit in Ontario, incredible, record breaking numbers.

So in order to fix this, I think the rate setting data used by FSCO should be made public. It is a public body, performing regulatory function on behalf of the public but we cannot get the data.

Secondly in US states where the commissioner of insurance is elected, and thus has to deliver reviewable results to the public, rates tend to be lower. Here an appointee that nobody knows about does the job and then usually retires and goes to work in the insurance industry. Other than the occasional political crisis the head of FSCO is not really accountable for rate issues.

I might also consider barring FSCO employees from working in insurance later, but then I am not sure we would ever get anyone half decent to take the job.

I trust your comment against private insurance takes into account the history of de-mutualization in this country.

Then we will start factoring in insurance sales patterns in hard and soft markets and reserve manipulation.

But on a simpler level, I support private industry and am quite certain that properly regulated private companies can deliver a good product at a fair price and still make a healthy profit.

 

[rld]

Rid, I don't doubt you know what you're talking about. But there remains a difference between knowing what you are talking about and being right.

I agree I pitched my point at the level of theory and I agree your points add tremendous clarification for anyone peeved at the current insurance situation.

But sometimes we can spin our wheels in the dirt we know well and the dust can cloud our eyes, making a bit of theory useful. If, as you say, we have all the government controls we need, then why is the system not working properly (quoting you, again)? It could be because we don't have all the controls we need. It could be because private insurers wield too much influence or have too much control of their own when it comes to setting prices (and the other issues you note). It could be, theoretically speaking, that so-called government controls are poor competitors when they face up to the demands private insurers are under to make profits.

Nothing in your post, for all it's getting down in the details, really touches on the central point I am making, that - theoretically if you wish - when private meets public in the arena of insurance private beats public, to the publics loss.

I suspect we agree on alot, but probably disagree on how far we are willing to let private interests go in this matter. In my case I just refuse to sugar-coat the point, letting it get lost in the flourish of intricacies. Without answering the questions above, I don't see how your command of the details is actually addressing the problem I identify. That is why I used the Venus analogy. Sometimes a person knows all the ins and outs, but misses the big picture.

I like your controls analogy. Let's use it. If you have a really good stereo with volume controls and it is too quiet or too loud, do you throw out the stereo or adjust the controls?

The controls in place are fine. They are just set wrong. If they simply take the dial for "underwriting profits" turn it down to -2% and listen carefully the system will be moved well back towards something that we all would like.

The other big part of the price under auto insurance is the costs of no-fault benefits which is completely a government creation, not a part of the product that insurers ever wanted to sell on their own. Thus the biggest cost driver in auto insurance comes from a government add on to the standard policy. Both insurers and most consumer/victim advocates would all like a return to pure tort. It would save billions.

Using real world examples again, the highest cost lowest efficiency auto insurance regime in the US is found in NJ, which is almost totally no fault. When Colorado (or was it Vermont--don't have time to look it up) switched from no fault back to tort premiums dropped almost 30%.

The no fault scheme, which is completely government designed, is so inherently flawed as to be unworkable. Having worked on these things both pre and through every no fault system, I can tell you straight tort or close to it is a far better solution, but government beaurocrats will never bite on that.