|
November 26 , 2001 Letters
to the Editor -- Brandon Sun Dear Editor, We are puzzled at some of the statements made in the editorial, "MPI increase bad for business," (Nov. 22/01). The editorial writer complained about two areas. The first concerned the writer's erroneous claim that Manitoba businesses did not have adequate time to plan for a commercial vehicle premium increase. In fact, there is about 10 months between our June 6, 2001 application to the Public Utilities Board and the time when those rates come into effect -- March 1, 2002. The application was well publicized through a news release (www.mpi.mb.ca) picked up by most major media and through prominent paid ads that ran in every daily and community newspaper in Manitoba - including the Brandon Sun. In both the ads and news release, the commercial vehicle aspect of our application was clear and specific. Secondly, the writer felt that commercial vehicle and motorcycle owners were being unfairly hit with premium increases, even though these were approved by the independent PUB. The fact is, premium revisions - increases or decreases -- for any vehicle category reflect claims costs associated with that category of vehicle. In other words, if the cost of accidents involving commercial vehicles and motorcycles goes up or down, that should be reflected in premiums. If we did not do that, other Manitoba motorists - like family passenger vehicles - would effectively be subsidizing premiums for these types of vehicle. That is something both the public and the PUB has told us they do not want. It would, quite simply, be unfair. The commercial vehicle category is a perfect example of fair rating practices. Over the past six years, there have been three increases and three decreases, all directly attributable to the costs of claims associated with this category. Fairness in rating is precisely what Manitoba motorists look for and that is precisely what the PUB found after reviewing our rate application. Sincerely, John
Douglas
|