Any carrrier crazy enough to participate in this “plan” deserves what they get – just as the public in Taxa-chusettes deserve what they get from the folks they have elected
but I know they SERIOUSLY need help with their rates. Give it a shot and see what happens. Insurers LOVE using non-driving related data to underwrite policies this may very well bring more insurers to the state.
The study, however is likely correct that SOME good drivers might be hurt by the new standards. California (finally) switched to follow the law it enacted years ago (forget the prop #) that insurance rates can be set on 3 factors – driving record, years experience and i think claims history. MOST rates in the company I worked at went down (substantially) but there was a small percent (about 9%) that went up basically because they were getting a really good rate due to where they lived that we were no longer able to count in underwriting.
All things considered, my personal belief is your insurance rate should be based on years driving, driving record, claims history and what type of vehicle you drive. Period, nothing else. I don’t believe all the risk analyst’s studies that “prove” this factor and that factor make a better risk – I believe statistics prove only what the statisticians set out wanting to prove.
Yeah, it was a great proposition, passed only by a slim margin in the Los Angeles area and allowed the rest of the state to pay higher premiums. I don’t know about Massachussets either, but the law of large numbers would seem to dictate that MOST of the good drivers would get to pay more because SOME of them feel they pay too much!
That’s your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to hold it (thanks for the prop # by the way…it was making me crazy that I couldn’t remember) but at our company (one of the top 3 insurers in the state and with MOST of that volume in northern California, not southern) we ended up with 9% having raised premiums, about 14% stayed flat and everyone else was lowered. That’s just the reality (at least, for us). So I say again, let them try and see what happens. They need to do SOMETHING because what little I’ve seen said their rates our crazy, out of control high.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Any carrrier crazy enough to participate in this “plan” deserves what they get – just as the public in Taxa-chusettes deserve what they get from the folks they have elected
Everyone else gets to foot the bill for those exceptional few that can’t seem to drive like most everyone else. Subsidies are great, aren’t they?
but I know they SERIOUSLY need help with their rates. Give it a shot and see what happens. Insurers LOVE using non-driving related data to underwrite policies this may very well bring more insurers to the state.
The study, however is likely correct that SOME good drivers might be hurt by the new standards. California (finally) switched to follow the law it enacted years ago (forget the prop #) that insurance rates can be set on 3 factors – driving record, years experience and i think claims history. MOST rates in the company I worked at went down (substantially) but there was a small percent (about 9%) that went up basically because they were getting a really good rate due to where they lived that we were no longer able to count in underwriting.
All things considered, my personal belief is your insurance rate should be based on years driving, driving record, claims history and what type of vehicle you drive. Period, nothing else. I don’t believe all the risk analyst’s studies that “prove” this factor and that factor make a better risk – I believe statistics prove only what the statisticians set out wanting to prove.
Yeah, it was a great proposition, passed only by a slim margin in the Los Angeles area and allowed the rest of the state to pay higher premiums. I don’t know about Massachussets either, but the law of large numbers would seem to dictate that MOST of the good drivers would get to pay more because SOME of them feel they pay too much!
That’s your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to hold it (thanks for the prop # by the way…it was making me crazy that I couldn’t remember) but at our company (one of the top 3 insurers in the state and with MOST of that volume in northern California, not southern) we ended up with 9% having raised premiums, about 14% stayed flat and everyone else was lowered. That’s just the reality (at least, for us). So I say again, let them try and see what happens. They need to do SOMETHING because what little I’ve seen said their rates our crazy, out of control high.