Vapour Trails Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/mpi-rate-setting-lashed-118974109.htmlManitoba Public Insurance and its practice of "excessive conservatism" in setting rates were skewered Wednesday at an emergency Public Utilities Board hearing over the recent revelation it had an extra $250 million to return to vehicle owners.The public regulator called the special hearing on how that money should be returned to Manitobans and to hold MPI officials accountable for how they run the Crown corporation.The underlying theme of the hearing was that the Selinger government, through Attorney General Andrew Swan, announced the unprecedented rebate and other changes to MPI injury coverage without first telling the PUB -- something it's supposed to do.Intervenors, including the Consumers Association of Canada, CAA Manitoba and the Coalition of Manitoba Motorcycle Groups, said it appeared the NDP government wanted to capitalize on the rebate in the upcoming Oct. 4 provincial election by announcing it first."It seems very timely for Mr. Swan to announce a $250-million windfall," Nick Roberts of the Manitoba Used Car Dealers Association said. "People will remember that."Swan, the minister responsible for MPI, announced the upcoming rebate March 18. A review of MPI's personal injury claims coverage determined the money wasn't needed."It's Manitobans' money, and we want to return it to Manitobans," Swan said at the time.The PUB was even more critical of MPI."Holding back is not in the public interest," PUB chairman Graham Lane said. "It leads to less effective rate-setting, unnecessarily wide volatility in annual net income and a loss of MPI's credibility in the eyes of at least some observers, including, unfortunately, this board."What the PUB must do now is decide how that $250 million should be returned to Manitobans.The intervenors all agreed the money should be returned right away."The money belongs to ratepayers," said Liz Peters of CAA Manitoba. "It shouldn't have been collected in the first place."MPI's Michael Triggs, director of legal services, told the board MPI wants to have a full hearing on the potential rebate later in the year. Some of the excess money could also be used for a new road-safety program to be rolled out in the fall.The PUB will make its decision in the next few weeks. Late last year, the PUB approved a $71.5-million rebate by May 31 -- or 10 per cent -- on the Autopac premiums Manitoba vehicle owners paid in 2009-2010. It also approved a four per cent overall reduction in Autopac premiums for 2011.Lane also said MPI should have know about the size of the excess $250 million well before Swan announced it."The common goal should be, and hopefully is, to serve the public interest, a goal this board has been finding most difficult to successfully achieve under the current approach preferred by MPI, which appears to include 'sitting on' extremely important information and not bringing the board into play until the last possible minute," he said.Consumers Association of Canada lawyer Byron Williams said MPI's rebates should not be looked on as "good news" for Manitobans.He said it shows many consumers have overpaid on their premiums over several years because MPI has been excessively conservative in projecting its costs.Lawyer Raymond Oakes, who acts for motorcyclists, said they have been hit exceptionally hard by excessive rates."One has to wonder how many riders are no longer riding," he said. "How many have cashed in their plates?"Oakes suggested the process of giving rebates to those motorcyclists will be a nightmare for MPI, and he told the PUB it might only be settled by a class-action lawsuit against MPI.Looks like all of us have money in the Bank of MPI, without knowing. Withdrawal time!
Need my Focusin Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 I knew I had money stashed away there. I've said it before and I'll say it again MPI marries the worst traits of insurance and crown companies.
Brian_Earl_Spilner Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 MPI has already been ordered to refund 45%. URLThat'll be a nice $900 cheque for me.
Vapour Trails Posted March 31, 2011 Author Posted March 31, 2011 Remember when they tried to give a past surplus ($20M)to the U of M as a gift in 2001? The public outcry was such that they immediately dropped those plans.Then they donated a building worth 1.2 M instead of selling it.http://taxpayer.com/blog/15-07-2010/mpi-should-have-sold-surplus-buildingThen there was the $1M donation to the Human Rights Museum. How is this in their mandate?
Jordan_Veale Posted March 31, 2011 Posted March 31, 2011 This explains why my insurance always increases just beyond the amount I get back in discounts for merits, immobilizers, etc.Looking forward to getting my money back ASAP.
justkickin Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 MPI has already been ordered to refund 45%. URLThat'll be a nice $900 cheque for me.Man you gotta slow down, or get married...that is twice what Ang pays...I don't buy insurance myself.
nishanna Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 I will enjoy my refund cheque just like everyone else, but I'm also amused by the public outcry over this... if we had private insurance like Ontario, our rates would be higher and we would never see a refund cheque. MPI has its flaws, but I'm generally happy with my reasonable insurance rates. Which is why I sent an email to my buddies in T.O. with Kosta's link lol
Vapour Trails Posted April 1, 2011 Author Posted April 1, 2011 I will enjoy my refund cheque just like everyone else' date=' but I'm also amused by the public outcry over this... if we had private insurance like Ontario, our rates would be higher and we would never see a refund cheque. [/quote']That hardly justifies over-charging us to the tune of a quarter of billion dollars and waiting as long as possible to tell anyone about it. Sure, we're crooked, but not as bad as those private companies!With private we'd also have something that we know nothing of....choice.We get all the choice that Soviet Russia had with cars.You want car? What kind? I got blue car and red car. Take your pick.
Need my Focusin Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 I will enjoy my refund cheque just like everyone else' date=' but I'm also amused by the public outcry over this... if we had private insurance like Ontario, our rates would be higher and we would never see a refund cheque. [/quote']Is the public outcry because our rates are too high or because MPI seems to feel they can do what they want with the money, including using it to help the current minister be re-elected. I don't mind them giving my money to human rights or this or that (I now have a good excuse to give telemarketers (I gave through MPI) but I dislike the ministers using it for their re-election. I don't mind being over-charged, as long as I get it back, minus their administration fee of course but I dislike them needing to be told EVERY year by the utilities board to do it.I'd like to be able to get a deal on insurance by bundling my home and 4 cars into one policy.
don4501 Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 I don't understand the huge outcry.The system clearly works, and that is amazing. A monitoring body rules for a refund for the consumers. I really hope mpi stays. We enjoy some of the lowest premiums in the country compared to private insurance.
yofa Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 i say leave it a crown corporation, but operate on a balanced budget. not too profit-greedy, so they can fund non-road-safety projects. right now, it operates like the ndp's piggy bank. they should drop their rates to only cover operation costs, not rely on refunds to even things out.
90RioGS Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 We enjoy some of the lowest premiums in the country compared to private insurance.False. My premiums in Alberta are significantly lower than they were in Manitoba. Compare to, say... Vancouver... ICBC is ridiculously expensive. Being public instead of private doesn't make insurance cheap. You also get more flexibility with private insurance -- you can insure a motorcycle out here for a couple hundred a year because all you really need for a motorcycle is liability.The biggest expense in private insurance (at least here) is for young drivers or people with bad driving records. Then your insurance is huuuge.
nishanna Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 That hardly justifies over-charging us to the tune of a quarter of billion dollars and waiting as long as possible to tell anyone about it.You had to wait a couple years to get a refund' date=' so what? You're [i']getting a refund! If your policy was through a private company, they could pocket that quarter of a billion dollars, issue no refund and would be totally justified in doing so. Sure, choice is nice, but there are no guarantees the privatized alternative will be any better or cheaper. My 62 yr old mom pays more for insurance in Ontario on her 2000 Civic DX than I do for a 2005 M3. That doesn't instill confidence in a privatized system.Although I have some sympathy for motorcycle riders. MPI seems to really screw them over. But then when I see a crotch-rocket doing a cat-walk down route 90, I lose all sympathy.
Need my Focusin Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 My 62 yr old mom pays more for insurance in Ontario on her 2000 Civic DX than I do for a 2005 M3. That doesn't instill confidence in a privatized system.I was on MPI's site and did a quote for insurance. They do not factor in the driver's age when doing so. I would bet dollars to donuts that statistically the old and young are worse risks. By not making them pay higher premiums the rest of us are subsidizing the risk they represent. If you want a fair comparison take someone the same age, same driver records, same car and the exact same coverage and do the comparison I would be curious what you would come up with.
IanB Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 getting a refund! If your policy was through a private company, they could pocket that quarter of a billion dollars, issue no refund and would be totally justified in doing so. Sure, choice is nice, but there are no guarantees the privatized alternative will be any better or cheaper.There ARE guarantees that privatized would be better, if a private insurance company treated customer the way MPI does, they would go out of business, quickly. If the quote you received is too high, you can keep shopping around and find a cheaper rate. Private insurance companies would never treat a customer like a criminal until proven innocent. Open your eyes man, there is a better way! MPI is not good for MB.
conebasher Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 If MPI were like most government or crown corporations, the excess would have been hidden or spent on something rediculous. Remember that income tax was only supposed to pay for World War II and was to be dropped once the war was paid for, but the government always finds a way to spend more. If MPI were a private company, investors would be clamoring for even higher profits, the rates would be higher and we would never see a rebate. Everybody needs to stop complaining or criticizing MPI, it is doing a great job and is way better than the insurance I have had to deal with when living in other provinces.
nishanna Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 If you want a fair comparison take someone the same age' date=' same driver records, same car and the exact same coverage and do the comparison I would be curious what you would come up with.[/quote']Fair enough... I found out what a high school friend from Toronto pays. Same age, clean driving record over last 5 yrs, 2003 WRX. He pays $300 more per year than I do. Didn't say what his coverage is, but I don't see it being any better than what I have ($200 deduct / $5M liability).My brother was in Ontario for a year for work last year, RCMP, 42 yrs old, clean driving record over last 5 yrs, 2010 STi. He is back in Manitoba now, paying $500 less per year than he did when he was in Ontario.I think there are a few too many posters in this thread demanding a privatized system without having any real experience with it. Just enjoy your rebate cheques while you can.
IanB Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Fair enough... I found out what a high school friend from Toronto pays. Same age' date=' clean driving record over last 5 yrs, 2003 WRX. He pays $300 more per year than I do. Didn't say what his coverage is, but I don't see it being any better than what I have ($200 deduct / $5M liability).My brother was in Ontario for a year for work last year, RCMP, 42 yrs old, clean driving record over last 5 yrs, 2010 STi. He is back in Manitoba now, paying $500 less per year than he did when he was in Ontario.I think there are a few too many posters in this thread demanding a privatized system without having any real experience with it. Just enjoy your rebate cheques while you can.[/quote']Ontario is one example of what the privatized system can be like, Alberta is another. Despite sharing a border with Ontario, we are a part of western Canada, so perhaps the Alberta example would be a better comparison?
conebasher Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 I know my particular car at the time skews the results but my 1968 Barracuda cost under $300 to insure here but when I moved to Alberta, it was $2100 for the same coverage. I had a 1971 Dodge truck that was $600 per year here for all purpose and when I moved to Dryden it was $1500. I have written off a Celica and Suburban, had a tree fall on my Porsche, a Jeep stolen and a Cavalier broken into and not once did Autopac treat me poorly or give me a bad deal.
Craig Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 I have no issues with M.P.I. I do have issue with there MANDATED MONOPOLY I beleve there should be choice. We should allow both crown corp. and private ins. within mb. then all would be fair..Just my opinon
apex Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 We have Winnipeg Insurance. It's an interesting combination.
wpgfordguy Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 you guys think you've got it tough.I get it from both ends we have 30 vehicels registered and had as many as 450 when we had budget.And I have a body shop where they nickel and dime us to death to the point where the customer's repair suffers.It sucks.
AMGNUTS_Bocar Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 From a litigation perspectiveImagine Manitoba only has 1 lawyer that everyone runs to for help. Imagine the same lawyer helps opposing parties on a litigation matter. First thing that comes to mind is "conflict of interest", right? Sure. MPI operates in the same way when it comes to determining faults.Here is an interesting tidbit: MPI offers absolutely no compensation for pain and suffering, no matter how serious and painful your injuries might be. In the mid 90s, when MPIC went to the no-fault format, they cut costs by doing away with the need for lawyers to lobby on behalf of their clients for pain and suffering settlements. Let's hope we don't get injured in an accident.
conebasher Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Imagine Manitoba only has 1 lawyer that everyone runs to for help. Imagine the same lawyer helps opposing parties on a litigation matter. First thing that comes to mind is "conflict of interest"' date=' right? Sure. MPI operates in the same way when it comes to determining faults.Here is an interesting tidbit: MPI offers absolutely no compensation for pain and suffering, no matter how serious and painful your injuries might be. In the mid 90s, when MPIC went to the no-fault format, they cut costs by doing away with the need for lawyers to lobby on behalf of their clients for pain and suffering settlements. Let's hope we don't get injured in an accident.[/quote']The ability to sue for pain and suffering is the biggest reason why insurance rates are so crazy in other provinces and the USA. Frivilous lawsuits are clogging up the courts in every jurisdiction that allows lawsuits over pain and suffering because how do you prove or disprove how much pain someone is in? A settlement for tens of thousands of dollars for lost wages and property damage can very quickly balloon to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars as soon as you add pain and suffering. Yes, some very deserving people with ongoing problems are left out in the cold without the ability to claim P&S, but for every one of those, there would be 10 false claims and we would all have to pay for those. It should be noted that you are not just a concerned citizen but that you are a lawyer.
IanB Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 The ability to sue for pain and suffering is the biggest reason why insurance rates are so crazy in other provinces and the USA. Frivilous lawsuits are clogging up the courts in every jurisdiction that allows lawsuits over pain and suffering because how do you prove or disprove how much pain someone is in? A settlement for tens of thousands of dollars for lost wages and property damage can very quickly balloon to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars as soon as you add pain and suffering. Yes' date=' some very deserving people with ongoing problems are left out in the cold without the ability to claim P&S, but for every one of those, there would be 10 false claims and we would all have to pay for those. It should be noted that you are not just a concerned citizen but that you are a lawyer.[/quote']AB has a cap in place, seems to work pretty well. The rates there are cheaper than here if you are a good driver, and over 25.
AMGNUTS_Bocar Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 It should be noted that you are not just a concerned citizen but that you are a lawyer.A concerned citizen who happens to be a lawyer. If I was a litigation lawyer, I'd probably have read more into this. But, I am not.In any case, let's hope we do not get injured in a car accident.
Jeff Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Imagine Manitoba only has 1 lawyer that everyone runs to for help. Imagine the same lawyer helps opposing parties on a litigation matter. First thing that comes to mind is "conflict of interest"' date=' right? Sure. MPI operates in the same way when it comes to determining faults.[/quote']This isn't really a fair comparison. A lawyer's job (in the case being implied here) is not to determine fault, but to lobby on behalf of his client to those who DO determine fault. Absolutely, it would be a conflict of interest to lobby for opposing sides, but that's not what MPI does.
Brian_Earl_Spilner Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 I for one am happy that MPI doesn't pay out for injury.There would be far too many Bill Murrays in Wild Things running around wearing neck braces out in public that they don't need, and taking them off when they get into their homes, while my insurance rate is through the roof.
AMGNUTS_Bocar Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 This isn't really a fair comparison. A lawyer's job (in the case being implied here) is not to determine fault' date=' but to lobby on behalf of his client to those who DO determine fault. Absolutely, it would be a conflict of interest to lobby for opposing sides, but that's not what MPI does.[/quote']It acts for both sides (all sides) and in a case where it has to determine fault, it is in a conflict of interest situation. A lawyer's job, more often than not, requires him/her to determine what degree of fault his/her client is in and gives advice accordingly.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.