Back in December I had the misfortune to be involved in a single vehicle accident. It was a rare cold day in what had been a predominantly mild winter to that point. The streets were coated in a layer of black ice. I was pulling into the driveway of the group home where I work with the company vehicle, a maneuver I make every day, when my front wheels got away from me and I plowed into a snow bank. The bumper cracked; maybe because the molded plastic bumpers they use on vehicles today become brittle in the cold. I’m not totally sure, I only know that I was driving—in my estimation—responsibly.
Prior to this incident I had maintained an accident-free driving record for more than 10 years. The van I drove was completely insured, and no damage was done to anyone or anything else. Despite all these facts the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPI) insists that I pay a $200 surcharge to keep my driver’s licence. This $200 is in addition to the $200 deductible charged for repairs to the van. It is a punitive levy that the corporation instituted across the board in 2001 in order to create more “fairness” in the system.
According to the Customer Service Agent I spoke to it is fairer to the majority of Manitobans to let them keep the merits and pay the surcharge, because merits provide a discount on insurance. He gave the example of someone who insured multiple vehicles, and the hardship a reduction in merits would cause this unfortunate soul. Needless to say I was largely unsympathetic.
As a person who does not insure a vehicle annually, the merit discount system is of little value to me. I would happily cash in all of my merits to avoid the avaricious levy the public insurer intends to collect. But I am not given the option. This is how their heartless PR department phrases it on the MPI website:
Q: Why do I have to pay a surcharge for having an accident?
A: Drivers cause accidents not vehicles. Surcharges make sure that all drivers who cost the insurance fund pay more into the insurance fund. For a 1st accident, registered owners do this by paying undiscounted premiums*. Non-vehicle owners do this by paying a driver surcharge. Surcharges increase in direct proportion to the number of at-fault claims.
*Vehicle owners with 6 or more years of claim-free driving will no longer lose their 25% merit discount after a first at-fault accident (that occurs on March 1, 2001 or later). Instead, they will pay a one-time $200 surcharge on their drivers' licences.
Some people will probably agree that the statement above—though rather cold and defensive—seems fair. But it is not fair from where I sit. I had one very minor accident in 10 years while driving a fully insured vehicle. In my opinion it should be incumbent on MPI to collect enough in annual premiums and deductibles to cover their costs. It should not be on my back to feed their bloated insurance fund because I don’t own a vehicle. Why should I subsidize people who can afford to own more than one automobile when I don’t own any?
If I was driving recklessly, or had been involved in multiple accidents, then I can see how additional charges might be justified. But in the case of a pure accident, shouldn’t the insurance company pay-out without looking for an additional graft?
This policy punishes good drivers who have decided for economic and/or ecological reasons not to own cars. If the provincial government is insistent on letting its crown corporation collect fines on people’s licences—a deplorable practice that robs a lot of people of their most universal I.D.— they should at least give vehicle-less citizens the option to use their merits to offset the insurer’s punitive levies.
No comments:
Post a Comment