CFN – Well I’m still plugging away after my three car crash here in Cornwall. My insurance company, Economical Insurance had dug their heels in so I released Para Legal Supreme James Moak on them. Mr. Moak is 4-0 in representing me.
Sure enough Economical responded to Mr. Moak not wanting to go to court; but sadly didn’t really up the bar by much. They added a few hundred dollars to their offer after writing off my car which is in fact repairable.
After our last story I was asked in comments about the other cars and here are the pictures. The VW Golf (Car “A”) below is the car I hit and then was smashed into again by Car “C”.
As you can see, in spite of being hit by me and then having my car bounced into it the damage is not as brutal as that sustained by my own car at the top of the page.
Car “C”, this Toyota seems barely scratched. No air bags deployed in any of the vehicles.
Economical still hasn’t given me a rental as they insist on only covering 50% of the cost as well as only 50% of the insurance. They are only agreeing to cover 50% of the storage on my car as well as we wait for this process to evolve.
My emails to Ms Karen Gavan, CEO of Economical have also still be unanswered.
At this point it looks like we’re off to court. We will keep updating this story as it plays out. And again, a case like this really highlights why we need auto insurance reform in Ontario.
You can post your insurance Lemon’s and Laurel’s below.
Get this thing settled to your benefit, as much as you can reasonably achieve given Economical’s track record at steamrolling over clients with justifiable claims, then run as fast as you can — as soon as you are able — to another insurance company.
I ran to Desjardins Insurance and have never been more happier after leaving my hapless Brister Group broker and Economical behind.
Good to know.. I have economical as well… Is it time to change insurance companies or is it time for co-op style insurance for Ontarians…?
Your vehicle is a Total Loss. If this is your 5th time with representation perhaps you should be more careful on the road. Less risky drivers on the road = lower rates for good drivers.
Nic this was my first claim in over 30 years of driving.
I would like to respond but it would be kinda lenghthy.
I was hoping editor would have said yes go ahead!
George lengthy isn’t an issue. Litigious or abusive can be 🙂
Thanks Jamie for getting back to me .
I have had the oppurtunity to review your article re :the loss of your car .
Firstly I find it very strange that no one has got back to you .
Perhaps you may have just dismissed what you may have been told .
My understanding is that since the early 1990, as a result so I understand it that ,the cost of solving automobile losses were very costly .
Insurance companies as a group decided to investigate a better way of solving losses . I’m led to believve that they insurance companies, took it upon themselves and most likely with the Insurance Bureau of Canada to try and resolve the problem of high cost litigation and lawyers cost and court in regards to settling claims .
As a result a fault chart was established to settle auto claims .
This is the little diagram that you provided for your readers .
This chart was developed so in the event that any insurance client as yourself in your predicument could be settled quickly and eviciently .
Not inyour case .It is my understanding that all Insurance Companies in the Province of Ontario abide by these rules .
I believe Quebec and BC also abide by these rules of settlement .
I believe if you look on the internet under Fault Chart you can find these rules as they are set out for most types of auto accidents .
Small diagrams and explanations are provided for each, make sure
to read closely as some are or appear similar.
I can not explain why the CEO has not replied to you?
I can explain that once you have a person of legal mind acting on your behalf such as the person you say, you say you unleashed upon them ECO>that they no longer can deal direct with you, they are privy to going through this medium now .If you check with Mr Moak I believe he can and will attest to that .
The other item is your car it is your car and you still own it and have the ownership . I’m surprised the Ins Co.hasn’t told you must mitigate your loss by getting your car out of storage .If your car had any salvage value after the accident ,it has been eaten up by fees by now .If you are fortunate the salvage Co.may accept to keep it in lew of any paymt .I really don’t see it being of much value to the Ins Co.
I do note that you remark your car is repairable .Everything is repairable Jamie for a price .But if the cost of repairs exceed the actual cash value of the car ,that would not be an option.
A futher aspect is that you mention Ins Co. doesn’t want to go to
court they are probably so use to it you wouldn’t belive .
Last I checked this would fall under Small Claims Court ,that cost was $250.00 to issue and serve .Now!!
I hope this sheds a little light on the subject.
I would have followed up sooner but I wrote a blurb on OPP warning the other day . When I went to post it I was told wrong e-mail and everything I wrote disappeared . I wrote a second time and when I posted my comment it said error and disppeared again .
Started to belive I was being bounced @ your end so I gave up.
Reason I hoped Editor would get back to me before this comment .
Just between you and I .Mr Moak 4- 0 is in my opinion only going to be 4-1 , you may get a few bucks for the car but the liability aspect will most likely stand .I have a free coffee on it .
Best of luck to you BTW I could not ,for fear of loosing this, get up to change the spelling .Keep up the good work .
It is difficult to understand why even your own Broker would not have tried to explain this to you.
I can not explain to you why the CEO would not have replied to you?
I can tell you and I understand that you have a person with legal mind representing you that
Thanks George. Sounds like you either work or worked in the insurance industry.
Hi Jamie seems like my info got cut off somehow .
As I was saying now that you have a person of legal mind representing you, the odds of hearing directly from your Ins Co. are slim to none .It is a No No!! when a client has legal representation .
I still have a free coffee on this one .you may in court get a few extra bucks for your ca, but the odds of you winning 100 % r next to none .I believe if you check with Mr Moak he will tell you more then likely you won’t hear back unless you dismiss him .
The system in the different provinces was set up to keep rates down believe it or not .
Only ones winning were the legal dept $$$$$$$$$$
Best of luck to you .keep up the good work .
BTW just a joke, I use to be the 2nd best Ins adjuster in all of Eastern Ontario, 2nd best, yup( because everyone else was tied for 1st, LOL
George all I’ve asked from Economical was to be treated fairly. I have full faith in Mr. Moak’s ability to see that is done.
Good luck Jamie… It is very hard to fight insurance companies.. In the past I usually just go along with them.. Assuming you had a choice in your garage of choice for appraisal… Rental cars are usually automatic..
Jane they only offered to cover 50% of the rental and insurance of the rental. I went out and had to buy a beater to drive for now. Patience is a virtue but not everyone can afford to be patient in these situations.
I truly hope you come out of this ok.. I do not experience with Ontario Insurance.. I only pay the big premiums and hope I am covered when I need it..
Hi Jamie
Daniel previously mentioned that take the money and run. I think he was right on .How do you justifye fairly .
I have provided you all the info to establish the actual cash value @ the time of your loss and a person of legal mind would no doubt
consider the same way .That is how it operates .
ECO must have had there appraiser value your assett, or had an independent appraiser the value your car .
This is what any Co.would do .These plp do nothing but ascertain the value so that the adjuster can or claims examiner can settle with the client .
If the matter goes to court normaly a JUDGE would abide by the experts opinion ,and he would have to explain how he or she put whatever they offered you for your car .
A RED or Black Book would be of value in establishing the value of your car . The car for the vintage would be almost obsolete and
more then likely be out of these books now though .
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Moak is a good man but only
God and a few saints i know ever created any miracles .
@ one time when a car was what they (Ins Co.) called transportation, a beater and I’m not saying yours was ??hard to tell from photo’s .They had sort of a set value ,that they would offer this was a resort to not really being able establish a value of a vehicle .I t was worth something because it was good enough to get a client back and forth to work .
One of your readers mentioned a 3,000.00$ value in a blue book .
That is only on Judge Judy show in the US of A .
Blue Books in Ontario were for outboard mtr values .
I hope I’ve been able to shed a little light on this for everyone .
Thanks for allowing me to share and the best of luck to you.
George all I asked of them was a fair value. Their offer was only about 60% of the closest blue book value.
They classified a head gasket job that cost over a thousand dollars as a “Tune up” and only offered to add $100 to the value of the car. They said the difference in value between my car with 94K KM and one with over 200K KM was only $160. I can tell you shopping for a replacement it’s far more to purchase a vintage Mercedes with that difference in mileage than $160.
Again, all I’ve asked Economical to be is fair. I’ve not asked for extra. Fair appraisal and fair settlement. So far their appraised value is far less than blue book or market value. And then we have the final debate about which percent of that value would be covered.
In the meanwhile I’ve had to cover all of my loss out of pocket. If we are legally going to mandate car insurance as we should consumers need better protection and process in Ontario.
Hi Jamie, I fully understand where you are coming from.
But and a big but, what the Ins .Co.is offering what you are legaly entitled to no more no less .You are being offered what you are entitled to .
The difference here is that you are partialy responsable for the accident .
In this incident they are agreeing to provide 50% of the value established on your car .
I have no idea of it’s value but for eg. lets say it’s worth $5000.00
What they are going to offer you is only 50% of that figure as there is no way of getting out of some liability ,your car was smashed on first impact .Like a previous reader said .If it would have only been A and you B you would be getting zero .
You have no collision on you car .
So you are going to get from Eco.what any of the other Insurers
would have done, they are all binded re Ins Act of Ontario and Laws of Ontario .No if’s but or mutts it is, what it is !!Like wise with your
car rental you are entitled to 50% of that figure if reasonable .By now they would have writen to you to return the rental as it should
not take this kind of time usualy to settle such a small loss .
I say small that tougue in cheek as it’s your money not mine .
Like I mentioned Ins Co are dispised by most plp, as most plp don’t know how the system works .It really doesn’t pay them to pee ,plp off .It believe it or not cost you in your premiums which may be justifiable in your mind,it may cost more money to try and settle with you
on something like this then the whole claim payable to you may be worth .I’ll come clean for your benefit .I spent 25 yrs of my life dealing with clients that were not happy .I never met anyone who was happy about an accident ,never met anyone who was happy they had a fire ,never happy about a fatality.Never happy about a flood .You get my point
But the clients were educated to the point that by the time I was done and settled with them they knew why and what the reasoning
was behind the offers of settlement
They may not have agreed but it is what it is,and they knew that .
If you knew how many times I heard I payed my Ins for 30 yrs and never had a claim, now it’s time to pay and they won’t pay .
We are all in a pool Ins is paid by lots of plp,it is set a side so that many contribute to a few who have claims .It is Governed by laws and protected to a point set out, to be there when claims arise .
Otherwise there would be a lot of Bankruptcies in the world .
Ins is set up to pay a dollar for a dollar no more no less .
Like any business there will always be good and bad ones ..
A lot has to do with who you may have to deal with and personalities to.
In what I call the old days Ins .may have had bad reps, but for the most part it does not pay to try and xxxx plp. If a client goes away
they have lost business .They like any business don’t want to loose your premium or anybody elses .
You have lost some plp who advertized you know how it can be lost .
And sometimes not over a lot or anything you’ve done wrong .
Sometimes you have to stand your ground when you right your right .
I trust this has been informative for you .
Like I said you may go up a bit in value for the car but.
If your claim was mine although i’m a bit in the know the claim would be handled the same for me as it should for anyone else .
Good luck to you.
were flooded .Never met anyone who was happy they had a fire .Never happy about a fatality .Break in’s. I spent the time to educate plp. They may not have been happy about what I told them
but they were able to understand the why’s and the reasons behind the settlements.
If you knew the times and amount of times I heard I paid in for 30 yrs and I have a claim and they won’t pay me .
Ins Co have been around for yrs and the reason why is you and we all are paying into a pool, the money is for better part governed by law to an extent ,to have a lot of plp who pay Ins to pay for the large claims by few .Otherwise there would be a heck of a lot of bankrupt plp in this world.
Portion of the claims other wise