And soooo they are taking into consideration that by “zip code” and factoring all the other issues, like the distance someone uses their “auto” to go to and from work, and the density of drivers (ergo the more likely an accident) and the loss data to support a higher rate – they can’t help it if people don’t want to buy their insurance?
Are they saying that everyone should pay the same amount of premium for like coverage no matter where they live – how far they drive – what kind of vehicle they own?
Making this information “public” isn’t going to change the facts unless the state wants to be the one to crunch the numbers and spell out in “plain language that a person of average intellegence can understand” (being the “over-reactive” “suit-happy” insurance consumer whoes understanding of insurance premiums, liability vs. negligence, and coverage is based on what they see on TV commercials for Attorneys)let alone the consumer groups who will have a field day with it – What does this prove?
I’m sorry – but isn’t this similar argument that by allowing insurance carriers to use credit scores to determine the likelyhood of having someone who has been struggling financially and may have gotten a black mark along the way (And face it folks… you can see the writing on the wall with this one and the current state of the economy) even if that unfortunate individual never (ever) filed a claim in their life gets slammed with an over inflated homeowners premium? They’re worried about AUTO coverage in a state and community where owning an auto is a matter of taste and practicality?
This is such a luagh. Authorities decry so-called red-lining when it comes to minorities, but when it comes to writing property insurance near tidal water, no one in any state insurance department can seem to even remember what red-linig is.
Just because people who live near the coast are assumed to be affluent, any actions against must not be red-lining, right?
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.
And soooo they are taking into consideration that by “zip code” and factoring all the other issues, like the distance someone uses their “auto” to go to and from work, and the density of drivers (ergo the more likely an accident) and the loss data to support a higher rate – they can’t help it if people don’t want to buy their insurance?
Are they saying that everyone should pay the same amount of premium for like coverage no matter where they live – how far they drive – what kind of vehicle they own?
Making this information “public” isn’t going to change the facts unless the state wants to be the one to crunch the numbers and spell out in “plain language that a person of average intellegence can understand” (being the “over-reactive” “suit-happy” insurance consumer whoes understanding of insurance premiums, liability vs. negligence, and coverage is based on what they see on TV commercials for Attorneys)let alone the consumer groups who will have a field day with it – What does this prove?
I’m sorry – but isn’t this similar argument that by allowing insurance carriers to use credit scores to determine the likelyhood of having someone who has been struggling financially and may have gotten a black mark along the way (And face it folks… you can see the writing on the wall with this one and the current state of the economy) even if that unfortunate individual never (ever) filed a claim in their life gets slammed with an over inflated homeowners premium? They’re worried about AUTO coverage in a state and community where owning an auto is a matter of taste and practicality?
Let’s go with the bigger picture here –
This is such a luagh. Authorities decry so-called red-lining when it comes to minorities, but when it comes to writing property insurance near tidal water, no one in any state insurance department can seem to even remember what red-linig is.
Just because people who live near the coast are assumed to be affluent, any actions against must not be red-lining, right?