Report: Deregulation Made Massachusetts Auto Insurance Market Worse

December 28, 2009

  • December 28, 2009 at 1:18 am
    Clareinsguy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverage options are available”.

    Consumers in other states have been using the yellow pages for years. Generally a call to an agent will give you “market prices”

  • December 28, 2009 at 1:21 am
    Melissa says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Proof that deregulation of personal lines insurance doesn’t work for the consumer.

  • December 28, 2009 at 1:32 am
    The Truth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How about all the Massachusetts jobs lost to other states… Nice Job bringing out of state carriers in…Rates will go up even higher in the future best attorneys mind there own business.

  • December 28, 2009 at 1:34 am
    Rob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Deregulation DOES work – look at the other 49 states in this country! The consumer has to bear some responsibility in gaining a certain amount of knowledge about what they are buying. In CT for instance, there are so many p/c carriers the consumer does win in the end…

  • December 28, 2009 at 2:14 am
    tiger says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A liberal, anti-corporation attorney general’s report. Yeah, that’s unbiased and all. How about this ridiculous conclusion: “Many consumers whose rates decreased paid more than they should have after the market was deregulated. Had the regulatory rate-setting process occurred in 2008, rates would have been reduced for essentially all consumers, with average rate reductions much greater than those seen under deregulation.” WTF? The rates went down but they should have gone down more? That’s the reason to re-regulate Mass auto….so people can pay higher rates again?

  • December 28, 2009 at 2:39 am
    BG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That says it all for me

  • December 28, 2009 at 2:55 am
    Klondike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Now that the market can self-correct itself for poor driving habits, Mass drivers must naturally pay more. Has no one driven around New England lately? Mass drivers are TERRIBLE.

    You stay classy, Mass!

  • December 28, 2009 at 2:58 am
    caffiend says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    .. an agent that has the time or energy to quote with “every company” that does business in a particular state. Especially since it normally requires that you are appointed with the company to do business with them.

    Most companies don’t want to have to deal with agencies that have low production figures with them. And not all companies are ones that agents want to deal with.

    I myself, only quote with 5 companies regularly for auto insurance. I don’t have the time to run figures for more.

    It’s the consumer’s choice and responsibility to shop around.

  • December 28, 2009 at 3:14 am
    Vlad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    …Commissioner prosecute criminals in Massachusetts?

  • December 28, 2009 at 4:34 am
    Rusty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Time after time, it has been demonstrated that the free market will ultimately provide the best price for the consumer. Realistically, would any company file for low rates in a rate-regulated environment if they feel they’ll be stuck with them when things go bad and they cannot get a rate increase? And, with all the TV advertising about low cost insurance, there’s no competition in the auto insurance business?? What are the folks in Mass. thinking? Remember when NJ went to heavy rate regulation? Several leading insurers left the state. When the regulation was eased, they returned. Companies will not purposely increase their rates if it drives business away. Like all business, they’re in business to make a profit and where there are no sales, there’s no profit. What always amazes me about regulators is that they profess to know what a fair profit is, as opposed to an “excess” profit, and what the consumer should be paying for their insurance. Gee, I’d like to know what I should be paying for food, or a flat screen TV, but don’t have the “advantage” of a regulator to tell me what that is. I have to do research or clip coupons to find that out but I guess when it comes to insurance regulators want to step in and do the job the consumer should be doing themselves.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*