Thursday, December 15, 2005

Punative Licensing Premiums

This is a letter I sent today to the Provincial Minister of Justice, whose juristiction includes the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPI).

Dear Mr. Mackintosh,

This letter is in regards to the $200 surcharge MPI plans to levy against my driver’s license following an at-fault accident I had with a company vehicle. I feel that this punitive fee is highly unfair, given the circumstances of my case, and is, in general, a very inappropriate way for the Public Insurer to collect revenue.

According to the MPI website:

Drivers who have had one at-fault accident and don’t hold a current and valid Manitoba (vehicle) registration, receive a $200 premium surcharge on their driver’s license. These drivers have a higher risk of causing other accidents.


I have had my driver’s license for 11+ years, in that time I have been involved in one accident. It occurred in my first year of holding a license (1994) when I lost the power to the brakes on my car and panicked. Since then I have driven vehicles large and small, commercially and privately, without incident. In those ten subsequent years I have received a total of two speeding tickets and two parking violations. I do not believe, given my driving record, that I am any greater risk for causing accidents than anyone on the road. I resent and reject the implication from the Public Insurer that this would be the case.

The circumstances of my particular case are as follows. I approached the driveway of the group home where I work, at a speed I felt appropriate to the driving conditions, which were somewhat slippery. Unfortunately, as I was making my turn I encountered a patch of black ice that took my wheels and guided them straight forward, over the curb, and into a bank of snow. Because of the cold conditions, and perhaps some previously unreported stresses, the front bumper cracked on impact. I was not driving irresponsibly, I did not damage anything or anyone else. My “fault” was merely to have an ordinary driving maneuver—which I have accomplished without incident thousands of times—become an accident of fate.

But in the Public Insurer’s eyes I am guilty, and deserve to be punished (to paraphrase the telephone agent who processed my initial claim). How else am I to learn, the logic goes, to drive responsibly?

MPI’s indiscriminant use of this punitive levy in my case only serves to engender my resentment for the Public Insurer and its overseers. I believe that MPI owes it to all Manitobans to be more sensitive to the facts of a case and act accordingly, especially when a good driver makes an honest claim. The Public Insurer is millions of dollars in the black right now—according to some critics, to a scandalous degree—they do not need my $200. In my opinion, they are unjustified in taking it, especially as a premium on top of my provincially granted driver’s license. It is highly inappropriate for the province and its insurance corporation to collude in this way in order to grab money they do not need or deserve.

Generally speaking, because this charge is levied regardless of the nature of the accident it encourages honest people to commit fraud in order to avoid MPI’s punitive measures. I believe this in itself is reason enough to reconsider its application. For instance, had I been aware that my honesty would cost me $200 beyond the $200 deductible I am already responsible for (not to mention the annual premiums paid by my company to insure its vehicle), it is doubtful I would have been as forthcoming as I was in this matter. Four hundred dollars represents a significant portion of my monthly income (approx. 35%), but had I, for example, claimed a hit and run I would not be stuck paying an additional "punishment" premium.

It should not be incumbent on Manitobans to lie in order to avoid a fee that in many cases is unjustifiable. If the Public Insurer is not receiving enough money to pay out claims (I’d like to see them make that argument) then let them increase premiums. Why should someone who needs to drive to keep his or her job, and who is demonstrably a good driver, but does not own a vehicle for economic and/or environmental reasons, be forced to subsidize the already over-stuffed coffers of the Public Insurer in this manner? They are punishing honest citizens like myself unfairly and it reflects very poorly upon them, and by extension, your government.

Sincerely,

No comments: