Insurance professionals predict heavy repercussions after footage of seven-year-old Quebec driver hits YouTube

Alex Vizer | Aug 12, 2009

Canadian insurance professionals are not amused by a Quebec father’s decision to let his seven-year-old child drive the family vehicle.

By now many across the country (and world) have watched the video of a seven-year-old boy driving down a Quebec country road; his proud father is filming and cheering him on from the passenger seat while other family members watch with fear and fascination from the back. The video, taped two years ago and first posted on YouTube the weekend of August 1, 2009, has in turn become an international Internet sensation, a source of national outrage, and evidence in a provincial police investigation launched against the parent.

The father, who has been identified as Sylvain Fortier, says that the resulting criticism and public scrutiny has turned his life into a “hell.” Based on comments from the Canadian insurance industry, from public scorn and the potential of criminal charges, this is not the end of Fortier’s troubles.

Insurance brokers from several provinces predict heavy repercussions for Fortier, when asked what they would do if the father in the video turned out to be one of their clients. Their replies give some insight into the actions that Fortier could expect from his current broker and insurance provider.

Dan Danyluk, chief executive officer of the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada (IBAC) said, “The average broker would contact the client, tell them that they are engaged in risky behaviour that, quite apart from compromising their insurance policy, has a high risk of injury or death.”

Others were not quite so diplomatic.

“I’d be freaked out!” exclaimed Darlene Thompson of the Coles Group in Halifax, Nova Scotia. When asked to speculate about Fortier’s future insurance prospects, she added: "I’m sure the consensus is that he would probably be in a high risk market."

Michael Vicentijevic from Seymour Alper Insurance in Montreal, Quebec seconded Danyluk’s option for allowing the broker to educate the policyholder. Vicentijevic said he would tell Fortier that he is engaged in unacceptable behaviour and added that, as a broker, he would report the event to the insurance company that was insuring the client, but would not make any suggestions on how to proceed.

“It is not our place as brokers to cancel him or suggest cancellation to the insurance company,” he said. He did, however, wonder if insurers would be able to rate for an event that took place two years ago and has so far not resulted in any criminal convictions.

Despite these ambiguities, regarding a change in current rates for undetected past behaviour, Vicentijevic is not optimistic about Fortier’s chances of remaining with his current carrier.

“I don't believe his company would cover him knowing what happened. It’s like lending a vehicle to someone who does not have a driver’s license, no matter the age."

John White, vice president of the Calgary, Alberta-based Pallister Insurance Agency, was the most vocal in his criticism of Fortier.

“The parent’s coverage was contingent on the kid actually being qualified to drive,” said White. “I don’t think he could even reach the pedals! How could he be qualified?”

White continued, “I’d ask for the insurance company to cancel his policy because it is a material change in risk.” He concluded by saying that it would then be up to the insurance company to refer the cancellation request to the provincial insurance regulator, who would make a judgment on the case.

An Echelon underwriter, who chose not to be identified, echoed White’s statements, saying that if Fortier was a client he would receive a registered letter of cancellation for a material change in risk.

John Thorpe of Utter Morris Insurance Brokers in Burlington, Ontario pointed out that Fortier would have voided his coverage if his son was involved in an accident.

“The policy only insures people that are legally licensed to drive. [The son] is not licensed to drive so he is not going to be insured. The guy is taking quite a chance with his own coverage as well as with other people.”

Thorpe continued, “You'd want to insure responsible people who are safe drivers, so we wouldn't want to insure him, but at the same time we are regulated and can't just cancel him,” he said before mirroring White’s comments about the need to file a cancellation reason with the province and make sure that it is approved.

“In a sense that’s a bit of a problem with the system,” Thorpe laments. “Common sense says: Who would want to insure him?"