Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member

CanadaPost insures by full $100, that means we pay same insurance premium regardless if insured value is $10 or $100. Is there any regulation preventing someone to up the insured value to the nearest highest point under given insurance premium - example insure $10 item at $99 ? Carrier will try to requests proof of value, but do they have any ground to stand on ?


 


This may be problematic with international shipments, because insured value <= declared value, but if not forbidden by regulations, it can turn CanadaPost incompetence into revenue stream. Not a big one, I have less than 10 claims on each 1000 Expedited Parcels, but it would not cost anything extra. Considering that average insured value is $50, then maximizing to $99 would yield about $50/claim, = $500 extra revenue per 1000 shipments. Every $500 helps 🙂

Message 1 of 19
latest reply
18 REPLIES 18

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

 Is there any regulation preventing someone to up the insured value to the nearest highest point under given insurance premium - example insure $10 item at $99 ?


 


 


Yes, it's called insurance fraud and it's illegal.


 


I have less than 10 claims on each 1000 Expedited Parcels, but it would not cost anything extra. Considering that average insured value is $50, then maximizing to $99 would yield about $50/claim, = $500 extra revenue per 1000 shipments. Every $500 helps Considering that average insured value is $50, then maximizing to $99 would yield about $50/claim, = $500 extra revenue per 1000 shipments. Every $500 helps


 


 


It wouldn't cost you anything extra at the time but in the end it will cost all of Canada Post customers when the rates go up to cover losses. The money has to come from somewhere. Basically... your "revenue" would be paid for by other ebay sellers and anyone else who uses Canada Post.


 

Message 2 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

"CanadaPost insures by full $100"


 


Actually, Canada Post provides indemnity UP to $100 - based on proof of value.


 


The premium paid is not for $100 but for the lost or damaged value UP to $100.


 


It is a bit like medical insurance providing you UP to $10,000 in medical bills while outside the country.  If you have a medical emergency and the actual cost was $2,500, you can only claim $2,500 (with receipts), not the maximum (UP to) $10,000 coverage

Message 3 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member


 Is there any regulation preventing someone to up the insured value to the nearest highest point under given insurance premium - example insure $10 item at $99 ?


 


Yes, it's called insurance fraud and it's illegal.



 


Are you presenting an opinion as fact or can you do a factual quote ?


 


There is very thin line between leggit business and fraud. Whats valid business in one country is a fraud in another. As a major one, usury comes to mind.


 


Overinsurance is a valid practice. If a singer insures loss of voice for $10M does not guarantee he will actually earn $10M by singing. It means if he accidentally looses the voice, he gets $10M.


 


So please, if you have something valid and factual to say, say it.


 

Message 4 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

From Canada Post General Terms and Conditions (paragraph 19.6)


 


http://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/terms/Advance_Parcel_Terms_with-e.pdf 


 


"Payment of Indemnity


 


If Canada Post elects to pay the Customer an indemnity, Canada Post’s liability is limited to paying the Customer an amount equal to: a) the lesser of:


 


i the actual value (either the sender’s cost, retail cost, repair cost, depreciated value or replacement value deemed appropriate by Canada Post), or


 


ii the amount of liability coverage purchased at the time of shipment less any compensation received by the claimant from any other source, plus"

Message 5 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member

Ok, quickly went through the CanadaPost Corporation act, and liability coverage terms of CanadaPost. Nowhere does it say anything about material proof.


 


Insurance fraud would be if insuree has control over insured item and deliberately damages is. Overinsurance is not fraud, it's is a security.


 


About the medical bills - there is various kinds of insurance. One type of insurance is to pay actual medical bills and this is what Pierre was referring to. Other kind of of insurance is a security against a loss of (mobility, limbs, vision, life, etc) and one can insure as high as they want and pay respective premium.


 


CanadaPost Corporation Act actually refers to liability as "security", which leads me to believe overinsurance is possible.

Message 6 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

There is a huge difference between overinsurance and insurance fraud


 


Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the general definition for fraud in Canada:


380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,


(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or (b) is guilty (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,


where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars


In addition to the penalties outlined above, the court can also issue a prohibition order under s. 380.2 (preventing a person from "seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of another person"). It can also make a restitution order under s. 380.3.


The Canadian courts have held that the offence consists of two distinct elements:


A prohibited act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means. In the absence of deceit or falsehood, the courts will look objectively for a "dishonest act"; and The deprivation must be caused by the prohibited act, and deprivation must relate to property, money, valuable security, or any service.

Message 7 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member


From Canada Post General Terms and Conditions (paragraph 19.6)


 


http://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/terms/Advance_Parcel_Terms_with-e.pdf 


 


"Payment of Indemnity


 


If Canada Post elects to pay the Customer an indemnity, Canada Post’s liability is limited to paying the Customer an amount equal to: a) the lesser of:


 



 


Very good, that's what I was looking for.


 


Thank you Pierre, you have been most helpful. I was actually googling around for this and could not find it.


 


 


To pjcdn2005: I still don't believe over-insuring parcels is illegal practice and I don't appreciate being patronized. Maximizing that number is pure bussiness and perfectly legal. If CanadaPost requests proof, they simply lower the claim to the invoice value. If they don't request proof and accept the claim, all power to the insuree.


 

Message 8 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

"I still don't believe over-insuring parcels is illegal practice"


 


That is correct.  You can overinsure as much as you want and pay the appropriate premiuns.


 


"If CanadaPost requests proof, they simply lower the claim to the invoice value"


 


That is the problem. 


When making a claim - and that happens well before Canada Post askd for a "proof" - you can only make the claim based on your actual loss, not based on the maximum indemmity available.  To claim more than the actual loss - regardless of the premium paid - may be considered postal fraud.


 


Since it is a legal definition, I suggest you consult a lawyer specializing in commercial law.


 

Message 9 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member

Pierre, the discussion is not worth $1000 consultation with commercial lawyer. As I said above, the extra revenue would be fairly small and at this point for me is only of academic value.


 


I come from two principles:


 


1) What is not explicitly illegal, is legal.


 


2) Value is very fluid term. We are not talking about "cost principle of GAAP" unless specifically worded that way. How much is a loss of goodwill (GAAP recognized asset) plus wages and other expenses related with tending to the claim ?


 


To show that value is very fluid term - how can CanadaPost prove insuring $10 is worth $1.80 - the same as insuring $99 ? I don't think they can. Are they engaging in insurance fraud if they are collecting premiums over their costs? According to some purists, they just may be. In my opinion, they are not, it's just business.

Message 10 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

I come from two principles :


 


Me also but these two 😮 & :_|

Message 11 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?


 


 


1) What is not explicitly illegal, is legal.


 


 



 


 


 


Everything about buying on line is based on trust and honesty......... and yes, it falls apart when buyers and sellers lie about things like item condition and items not arriving etc. ............


 


BUT.......... the only reason it works at all is because the principle of do it if you can get away with it (i.e.: What is not explicitly illegal, is legal.) is followed by so few.


 


I can't believe you're actually discussing these things ...........  here of all places.

Message 12 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

All I'll say is Wow, Just Wow.

Message 13 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member


BUT.......... the only reason it works at all is because the principle of do it if you can get away with it (i.e.: What is not explicitly illegal, is legal.) is followed by so few.


 


I can't believe you're actually discussing these things ...........  here of all places.



 


What is wrong with this place ? Same as anywhere, what I think.


 


Anyone who believes over-insuring parcels is unethical: Folks, nobody is forcing you.


 


143 views of this thread, I don't think everyone shares that opinion.


 


I scanned Insurance Act (of Ontario) and as far as I can tell over-insuring is not illegal. Going further than maxing up to nearest $100, nothing illegal about purchasing $5000 policy on $100 item, CanadaPost determines the betting ods and insured pays premium proportional to policy value. In event of claim, CanadaPost can be presented with two choices: 1) replace lost item with identical plus sender's expenses with claim, or 2) pay face value of the purchased policy plus shipping cost. Would like to see how CanadaPost replaces rare book or grandma hand-made jersey.

Message 14 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

"1) replace lost item with identical plus sender's expenses with claim, or 2) pay face value of the purchased policy plus shipping cost"


 


Better go read the tos again as that isn't even close to what they are offering

Message 15 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

BB beat me to the punch with his comment.


There are many actions which are legal but are not honest.


 


In any case, why are you bothering to insure anything with any third party (Canada Post, shipinsurance, Hugh Wood, etc.)?


You would be most profitable by including a small amount in each shipping and handling fee to act as a self-insurance premium. Then when the occasional parcel is delayed (and delay is more likely than actual loss in the mails, which are very efficient, eventually) you pay your customer his refund from that self-insurance fund ignoring Paypal and eBay and the Post Office entirely. Saves labour costs too.

Message 16 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

Another point.


While the USA allows residents to import $200 value without duty, that is much higher than in most countries.


If you insure a parcel for $100, when the value is only $10, the customs agent may well take the insured value for levying customs and sales tax.  If those kick in at $20, you will have an angry customer on your hands.

Message 17 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member

Toby: true. But my experience is they rarely ask for material value proof and accept the claim. If the difference in CanadaPost opinion on the value and insured value are worth the fight, take it to SC and let them present T&C on a website that can be changed anytime and are not attached to policy against your receipt with policy face value. I get the hunch there would be no hearing at all. Disclaimer, I never tried CP, but once did other "too big to sue" company and they settled including my claimed filing costs and time faster than Fedex delivered the court files to them.


 


femmefan: overinsuring is not dishonest, but I respect some may have different opinion and I am not criticizing them for it, calling them names, patronizing and wowing them, so please return same favor, otherwise is just plain childish. About self-insurance - CP includes insurance policy inseparably in base price of some services.


 


Thanks to all who contributed, topic closed for me.

Message 18 of 19
latest reply

Maximizing postal insurance revenue ?

aqyera
Community Member


If you insure a parcel for $100, when the value is only $10, the customs agent may well take the insured value for levying customs and sales tax.  If those kick in at $20, you will have an angry customer on your hands.



 


Yes of course, it only makes sense to maximize insurance policy value on domestic only, because declared value >= insured value on US and international.

Message 19 of 19
latest reply