Topic: Rates go up at every renewal

[ArticSteve]

I'm more sensitive to the issue because I had a company that worked in that field of asset recovery.

Just to bother everyone tonight  ;  if a tech from a dealer tests drives your car and causes an at fault accident it's on you not the dealer.  If the tech is impaired and convicted; alcohol or drugs, your insurance is void.  You will end up personally paying for the entire loss.  Your losses and the losses of the other parties.

Most of you will believe that isn't the case.  It is. 

I would think living in the US one would need a huge amount of liability insurance because jury awards in US civil cases are astronomically stupid.  If I lived there I would consider putting my assets in a corporation including the home.

[marcus_go]

I'm more sensitive to the issue because I had a company that worked in that field of asset recovery.

Just to bother everyone tonight  ;  if a tech from a dealer tests drives your car and causes an at fault accident it's on you not the dealer.  If the tech is impaired and convicted; alcohol or drugs, your insurance is void.  You will end up personally paying for the entire loss.  Your losses and the losses of the other parties.

Most of you will believe that isn't the case.  It is. 

I would think living in the US one would need a huge amount of liability insurance because jury awards in US civil cases are astronomically stupid.  If I lived there I would consider putting my assets in a corporation including the home.

Weird, never heard of that before. Pretty sure they sell insurance policies specifically for car dealerships, garages, body shops for that specific case if something happens while the vehicle is in their possession.

[ArticSteve]

NOPE.  In Canada, an entity cannot insure or indemnify property that is not under their ownership because they don't have a legal interest in that property.  Any vehicle parked in a new car dealership has no coverage from that dealer.  Any vehicle driven by an employee of that dealer has no coverage by the dealer unless the dealer has a legal interest in that vehicle.

[marcus_go]

NOPE.  In Canada, an entity cannot insure or indemnify property that is not under their ownership because they don't have a legal interest in that property.  Any vehicle parked in a new car dealership has no coverage from that dealer.  Any vehicle driven by an employee of that dealer has no coverage by the dealer unless the dealer has a legal interest in that vehicle.

So what you are saying is that if someones drops their car off at the dealer or repair facility for repairs, and the technician causes a crash that injuries other people, the vehicle owner is legally responsible?

This makes absolutely no sense. I am almost certain that any reputable repair shop or dealership specifically carries a policy that protects them for these exact situations. Otherwise nobody would take the risk of having their car repaired by a shop or dealership.

[rrocket]

NOPE.  In Canada, an entity cannot insure or indemnify property that is not under their ownership because they don't have a legal interest in that property.  Any vehicle parked in a new car dealership has no coverage from that dealer.  Any vehicle driven by an employee of that dealer has no coverage by the dealer unless the dealer has a legal interest in that vehicle.

So what you are saying is that if someones drops their car off at the dealer or repair facility for repairs, and the technician causes a crash that injuries other people, the vehicle owner is legally responsible?

This makes absolutely no sense. I am almost certain that any reputable repair shop or dealership specifically carries a policy that protects them for these exact situations. Otherwise nobody would take the risk of having their car repaired by a shop or dealership.

They carry an umbrella type liability insurance.

But that won't fix your smashed up car.

[marcus_go]

NOPE.  In Canada, an entity cannot insure or indemnify property that is not under their ownership because they don't have a legal interest in that property.  Any vehicle parked in a new car dealership has no coverage from that dealer.  Any vehicle driven by an employee of that dealer has no coverage by the dealer unless the dealer has a legal interest in that vehicle.

So what you are saying is that if someones drops their car off at the dealer or repair facility for repairs, and the technician causes a crash that injuries other people, the vehicle owner is legally responsible?

This makes absolutely no sense. I am almost certain that any reputable repair shop or dealership specifically carries a policy that protects them for these exact situations. Otherwise nobody would take the risk of having their car repaired by a shop or dealership.

They carry an umbrella type liability insurance.

But that won't fix your smashed up car.

Weird. Maybe it is done differently in other provinces, but here in B.C., looks like garage policy would cover physical damages if garage/shop is responsible. It wouldn't cover if say your car got backed into when another customer hit it while parked in the lot.

Legal Liability for Own Damage to Customers’ Vehicles — Collision Section 3 — Subsection A
Minimum Coverage Permitted – $1,000 Deductible
Provides coverage for damage to customers’ vehicles caused by collision for which the garage operator is legally liable. In order to be legally liable, the garage operator must be negligent. Merely having possession of the vehicle does not mean that the garage operator is liable. In practice, the claim will be paid under the vehicle owner’s policy and if the garage operator is liable, it will be charged against the garage policy.

[JohnnyMac]

So you are telling me that a mechanic could take your vehicle for a joy ride, run into one of his "associates", cause them bodily harm and property damage, and the mechanic and shop are off Scott free?  They aren't responsible for anything, their "associate" gets a big pay out from insurance, and the owner is left with the bill? 

Now I'm not saying that this couldn't be the case, my question is more, why wouldn't there be any recourse with the mechanic and the shop?  In my mind it should be that my insurance pays the "associate" for bodily injury and harm, but that the mechanic and the more specifically the shop will be sued by my insurance provider/me to recoup the entirety of the cost associated with this "accident".  But again, I'm not a lawyer or any kind of legal expert, so maybe Arctic Steve is correct.  If so, seems like the system is set up perfectly to scam the insurance company and it's policy holders.

[Woodrow]

So you are telling me that a mechanic could take your vehicle for a joy ride, run into one of his "associates", cause them bodily harm and property damage, and the mechanic and shop are off Scott free?  They aren't responsible for anything, their "associate" gets a big pay out from insurance, and the owner is left with the bill? 

Now I'm not saying that this couldn't be the case, my question is more, why wouldn't there be any recourse with the mechanic and the shop?  In my mind it should be that my insurance pays the "associate" for bodily injury and harm, but that the mechanic and the more specifically the shop will be sued by my insurance provider/me to recoup the entirety of the cost associated with this "accident".  But again, I'm not a lawyer or any kind of legal expert, so maybe Arctic Steve is correct.  If so, seems like the system is set up perfectly to scam the insurance company and it's policy holders.

You sue them.

[marcus_go]

So you are telling me that a mechanic could take your vehicle for a joy ride, run into one of his "associates", cause them bodily harm and property damage, and the mechanic and shop are off Scott free?  They aren't responsible for anything, their "associate" gets a big pay out from insurance, and the owner is left with the bill? 

Now I'm not saying that this couldn't be the case, my question is more, why wouldn't there be any recourse with the mechanic and the shop?  In my mind it should be that my insurance pays the "associate" for bodily injury and harm, but that the mechanic and the more specifically the shop will be sued by my insurance provider/me to recoup the entirety of the cost associated with this "accident".  But again, I'm not a lawyer or any kind of legal expert, so maybe Arctic Steve is correct.  If so, seems like the system is set up perfectly to scam the insurance company and it's policy holders.

In BC there is a garage policy that is provided by our provincial auto insurer ICBC. This is what I found:

Is a Garage Policy compulsory?
Yes. Any person engaged in the business of selling, repairing, maintaining, storing, servicing, towing or parking vehicles is specifically excluded from their customers’ insurance coverage. The Garage Policy provides the garage operator with insurance for these customers’ vehicles while they are in the care, custody or control of the garage service.