Page 1 of 1
Drivers Abstract/ Suspension = Manuel Insurance Decline
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:59 pm
by diuness
Hello all,
A year ago I was charged with +50 and given a stunt driving charge and a 7 day lic. suspension. Long story short (I had an excellent lawyer) I was aquitted of all charges, but to my dismay the suspension still shows in my abstract. Me thinking all was ok again (http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/autob ... 04_06.aspx) called for a few insurance quotes and each one of them said they would not insure me. So is there anyway I can appeal to have the MTO remove the suspension since I was acquitted?
Re: Drivers Abstract/ Suspension = Manuel Insurance Decline
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:43 am
by Stanton
I dont believe you can get the record removed, since technically you were under suspension at the time. Regardless, as shown in your link, insurance companies are supposed to ignore 90 day ADLS suspensions, since there is no driving offence conviction connected with the suspension. In my mind, the 7 day racing suspension is no different. Its a suspension based on an allegation, and not a conviction in Court. Unfortunately Im not aware of anything that clarifies this point on the FSCO site.
Have you considered contacting the FSCO to see what they say? They oversee insurance companies and might be able to help you or at least confirm if insurance companies can consider all suspensions.
Re: Drivers Abstract/ Suspension = Manuel Insurance Decline
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:55 am
by diuness
So I did contact the FSCO, and what they say is basically unless the suspension is administration (medical, or and overlook) and suspension based on suspicion with or without a conviction is rateable by an insurance company. So as long as my record of suspension stays i'll have to go to high risk.
Re: Drivers Abstract/ Suspension = Manuel Insurance Decline
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:15 pm
by ynotp
I would get what FSCO said in writing. Then give this to the lawyer you hired and see what he has to say about this. Is there a charter argument here?