MPI - Monopoly Powers Insult

A few weeks ago, I became one of the thousands of Winnipeggers to have their car broken into. While
I was saddened to see the shattered glass and the empty space where my GPS system used to be, I
was equally saddened I could no longer boast “my car has never been broken into”. But after I swept
out the glass, I figured, ‘hey, I guess that’s what my car insurance is for, right?’. Well, not exactly…

After making a claim with Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI), I called multiple glass shops until I found one
that could do the repairs that day – a Saturday. As a poor student who needed the car for work on Monday,
waiting around for it to be repaired was not an option. Then, I was informed of MPI’s “recycled glass
policy”.

According to the glass shop I spoke to, before any work could begin on the vehicle, MPI requires that a
search be conducted to determine if recycled parts could be obtained for the repairs. Unluckily for me, this
search could not be conducted until Monday.

In addition to being concerned about the quality of the ‘recycled’ glass to be used in my vehicle (especially
since the repair shop told me that they never use recycled glass for anything other than MPI claims and that
they don’t guarantee recycled glass), I couldn’t believe that I would be forced to wait days to have my car
repaired due to MPI’s bureaucratic policy.

The motive behind the MPI recycled glass policy is that recycled parts are less expensive than new parts
and using them keeps costs down. But I wondered, for the amount of inconvenience the recycled glass
policy has caused me, and all the other Manitobans waiting to have their vehicles repaired, how much are
they really saving? So I filed a Freedom of Information request with MPI to find out. The result: less
than 18% of glass claims in the last two years have resulted in the use of recycled glass. That’s a lot of
customers and businesses waiting around for nothing…

Some claim that we should be happy with our mandatory government-run auto insurance because the
prices we pay are lower than those in provinces with private insurance. But am I happy to be forced
to pay thousands of dollars to a company which offers substandard service, requires the use of inferior
products, and from which I have no recourse when I am dissatisfied? No. Would I be willing to pay more
so that I could choose to utilize a company that aims to serve the needs of its customers and could be held
accountable if it fails? Yes. And I know I’m not alone.

It’s time to loosen MPI’s grip on the auto insurance business and allow for competition. That way, those
that love MPI’s service can continue to buy their auto insurance from the Crown Corporation, and those
that don’t would be free to go elsewhere.

Note: In subsequent research, I discovered that there are at least two auto repair companies in Winnipeg
which, for these types of MPI glass claims, immediately install the new glass for the customer and if
recycled glass is subsequently found through the required search, the company takes the loss. That’s just
one example of the type of customer service that comes with competition.

Posted: July 26, 2010
Topic: Manitoba

Join Us | Donate

Forward page to friend

Comments

Tue, 2011-01-04 16:23 — An Anonymous Taxpayer (not verified)

Re: Manitoba Powers Insult

Having your car broken into in Winnipeg is not so much as being victimized as it is a rite of passage. Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) has had the practice of using recycled parts for years and as with other unilateral policies / regulations it can be frustrating as they are the only legislated service providers. I found it interesting that there was no discussion about the deductible that the owner had to pay. For many Manitobans the reality is that they have to pay for the deductible when their car windows are smashed or door locks breached. MPI does not consider it to be theft unless the steering column has been tampered with. If you have a car that is hard to steal but attractive to an apprentice thief then you have troubles. As stated by the owner, the intent of the break-in was not to steal the car but the Global Positioning System unit which was left out and in plain sight. I am surprised that the rant was about recycled glass and not being held responsible by MPI for the full deductable. The only recourse would have been to retain a lawyer and take the insurance company to Court over a $200.00 deductable which is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig. A case in point is that MPI refused to provide insurance coverage for cars that were frequently stolen unless the owners installed a partially subsidized immobilizer. For many owners this device worked all too well as the system was imperfect. There are bound to be imperfections of any bureaucratic monopoly however, while insurance rates continue to climb, Manitobans have actually received rebates in past years when the insurance company made too much money and one wonders if that is ever possible? The fact remains that insurance rates in Manitoba can be further decreased under the present system if the current rate payers are no longer forced to continue to subsidize drivers with poor driving records for speeding and traffic accidents or those who use cell phones or who have electronics such as GPS units which demand that the driver divert their eyes from the road. Statistics will prove that people who own these devices will get into more accidents than those who do not. 47% of polled owners admit to programming these units while they are driving, consequently cars equipped with them should have additional insurance coverage. At the end of the day that thief made us all a little safer and furthermore, poor students take the bus!

Tue, 2010-09-07 18:14 — An Anonymous Taxpayer (not verified)

MPI

I am originally from Alberta and have never owned a vehicle while in Manitoba, so I am unfamiliar with MPI and socialized, no-fault auto-insurance. How can they force you to buy their product?

While it may prove more difficult to make a claim -depending on what type of claim you're making - you could go out of province to buy your insurance, could you not? As long as you're insured what difference does it make where you got it from? Also, depending on deductibles it usually proves much cheaper to just take the loss of property and damage rather than make a claim.

Again, I don't know how it works in Manitoba, I'm speaking from Alberta experience, but making claims for things like windows and stereos, etc usually ends up translating into higher premiums next billing period. However, I know there's an exception with a window per year sometimes, too.

Post new comment

Canada's Federal Debt

This option will not work correctly. Unfortunately, your browser does not support inline frames.

Your Share

The federal government is adding $88 million a day to our debt. At this rate, the $105-billion in debt repayment between 1997 – 2008 will be wiped out this year. Support our campaign for a federal balanced budget law and help us STOP this clock.

View Debt »