Do people with bad credit have more losses than those who have good credit? statistically–yes… Insurance, by nature is legalized discrimination. However, just because you can show a pattern– does it make it right to use it? No. I’m sure you could show dumb people have more losses than smart people. Do we get an IQ score to determine their rate? Most Co’s treat no credit as bad credit– this harshly discriminates against minority groups who use only CASH.
I have read all the posted comments and the one that I totally agree with is the one written by “pan”. He/She hit it right on the head!!!!! I worked as an Underwriter for the Hartford Ins. Company for 23 years. They were one of the first ins. companies to use Credit scoring. It DOES discrimate against the poorer/middle class people which includes alot of minority people. It is much easier to pay your bills on time when your earning $100,000+ a year than it is when you are struggling to survive on $20,000+. Insurance Companies do NOT underwrite any more. They have the computers programmed that “screen” every application for credit scoring, past claim history, location, etc. BEFORE it is even sent to an Underwriter to “review”. Underwriters are not allowed to use “judgment” anymore in their decisions on whether or not a risk is acceptable – that is why I retired from the Corporate rat race. Credit scoring should be abolished – the only one who is benefiting from Credit Scoring is the profit being made by the Insurance Companies! BUT – these ins. companies are NOT lowering their rates, nor are they paying claims any better!!
The State of Texas initiated a study last year to try and determine the fairness/effectiveness of insurance scoreing. The study concluded that the correlation between loss cost and insurance score was so significant (.95 with the highest possible being 1.0), that it was an INDEPENDENT predictor of risk and provided insurance companies an effective and fair means of discriminating(read segmenting)between various risks. Many customers get great discounts, and rightyfully so, because their propensity to file a claim is lower.
1. Do the Insurers-Adjusters use discernibly measurable â€Ŕget in, cut a check, and get out†claim estimating and settlement schemes that set-up homeowners for a time consuming-bogged-down challenge of the Insurers-Adjusters understated damaged property assessment and estimate values?
Does their construction business / claim settlement estimating software thoroughly define actual and itemized construction products, processes and pricing references so as to be able to reasonably anticipate thoroughly â€Ŕfixing†a given â€Ŕloss†scenario…in any given region of the country? Do Insurers-Adjusters estimates unreasonably â€Ŕignore†that construction business data?
2. Is it reasonably clear and evident [hail, wind, fire, moisture, flood, etc.] property damage is consistently â€Ŕmissed†by Insurer-Adjusters’ estimates? Claim under-assessment / underpayment will follow. When ALL damage is (eventually) verified by another adjuster, are verifiably unsafe-lowball-substandard repair or replacement processes and pricing still offered by the Insurer-Adjuster in the name of â€Ŕnegotiating the claimâ€�
3. Is so called local â€Ŕcompetitive estimating practice†being â€Ŕinvented†by Insurer to confuse and discourage consumer from using [competent-high quality] skilled-competitively priced, contractors? Do the Insurer-Agent / Broker-Adjuster subtly â€Ŕsuggest†that you, the homeowner, find another Contractor if the [market competitive] Contractor estimate is not to their liking?
4. The Adjusters property damage-repair assessment / estimate â€Ŕtestifies†as to whether a specific single trade craft or multiple trade crafts are warranted for â€Ŕloss†repair or replacement. Does the adjusters estimate to the consumer then contradictorily deny that multiple trade â€Ŕloss†repairs require G.C. oversight and costs?
5. Your policy allows for appropriate â€Ŕcontractor[s]-of-choiceâ€Â. Does the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster try to [force-coerce] you, the homeowner, to act as your own â€Ŕcontractor†by using unfair and deceptive claim assessment-estimate value theory â€Ŕtestimony†via ignored / contradictory policy language entitlement interpretations in their estimate?
6. Does the Insurer-Adjuster invent reason[s] why it is fair and reasonable for you to trust and manage roofing, carpet, etc. tradesmen, verses having a / your (trusted and experienced) Contractor doing the same as part of the whole [G.C.] supported project scope?
7. Does the Insurer-Adjuster try to â€Ŕchoose†the contractor the homeowner is â€Ŕentitled to†by unfairly / illegally ignoring the contractual relationship of the contractor and the homeowner, and sending their own â€Ŕpreferred†contractors to attempt to lure the insured to break the existing contractor-client relationship?
8. Are commonly known materials and labor and overhead costs irrationally and unfairly â€Ŕbundled†and not line itemed for verifying ALL contractors’ financial investment accountability-purchase, installation and profit costs? Are consumer proven, construction repair-replacement deficiencies (in the adjusters’ / contractors’ assessment-estimates), ignored by the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster?
9. Is â€ŔLoss†defined-anticipated [prima fascia / quantum meruit] Contractor / G.C. labor and 10% / 10% overhead and profit (OHP) values excluded-robbed from the Insurer-Adjuster-to-Consumer estimate? Are G.C. quantified* â€Ŕloss†damage scope and repair processes (that inherently define intrinsic claim estimate structure-settlement procedures and protocol norms) faked by the Adjuster and supported by the Insurer-Agent?
Does mathematically fair and reasonable Contractor-G.C. (Primary-General Contractor labor and Contractor overhead and profit margin data (10/10) â€Ŕappear / disappear†on the Insurer / Adjuster-Consumer delivered estimate? Is Contractor- G.C. 10% overhead and profit truly and actually accounted for? Do the math for yourself.
Notice the 10% profit value is truly 10% of the whole investment? Be careful of this particular value sum total being underpaid by the Insurer-Adjuster. (See paragraph 12)
10. Are actual G.C., Builder, etc. Contractor [material, labor, taxes, overhead, (general conditions, equipment, bonds, phone bills, permits, etc.) and profit] factors and values of the claim, that are reasonably and readily known to be needed by the Adjusters’ â€ŔContractor estimate modelâ€Â, intentionally and contradictorily denied (not voluntarily accounted for and forwarded), in the Adjuster-to-Consumer estimate, even before a Contractor is hired?
11. â€ŔImplied-in-fact†contract theory. When the â€ŔLoss†implies that policy claim protocol values equivocal to specialty or G.C., Builder, Remodeling business processes and values exist…does the Insurer-Adjuster [knowingly] provide a fake / deceptive rendering of those business process values to unsuspecting consumers via an under assessed-underpaid claim estimate / settlement â€Ŕofferâ€�
12. Does the Insurer-Adjuster submit arbitrary claim settlement estimating practice totals that do not reflect â€Ŕreasonable-to-conclude†construction business estimating norms? (E.g. G.C. Roofing, carpet, etc. sub-trade investment is removed from a G.C. valued estimate and then G.C. overhead and profit margins are totaled).
13. Has the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster implied or stated irrational-nonsensical rhetoric designed to trick and confuse consumers? Are simple addition / subtraction construction business processes and estimating value math facts avoided, twisted or lied about? (E.g. ‘Roofing contractor 10% / 10% overhead and profit margins is included in the value of your estimate, soooo, the Primary General Contractor overhead and profit investment values are supposed to be less than 10% / 10%’). This is very, very popular Insurer-to-Adjuster-to-Consumer trickery that underpays claims / claim values.
14. Do Insurers claim-imply to consumers that G.C. quantified â€Ŕloss†dollars are not commensurably (â€Ŕprima fasciaâ€Â-â€Ŕquantum meruitâ€Â) due / owed a hired or [â€Ŕloss†defined-anticipated] G.C. business model?
15. Do Insurers-Agents-Adjusters imply to consumers that their claim estimate alone is the first / final word (equivocal remuneration fix and fulfillment) in settling the construction products, reconstruction-restoration processes and pricing of the â€Ŕlossâ€�
16. The implied intent of an Insurer-Adjuster assessed â€Ŕloss†estimate is to â€Ŕput someone back to where they were before the â€Ŕincident†created the â€Ŕlossâ€Ââ€Â…and ALL that that can mean. Is the â€Ŕtestimony†of the Insurer-Adjuster-Consumer paperwork, delivered to the homeowner, true or untrue in the specific and overall nature of its discovery, disclosure? Does the Insurer-Adjuster assessment-estimate prove truly good faith damage scope verification and generally appropriate repair processes and cost values have been (Insurer-Adjuster) attempted / fulfilled?
17. Does the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster try to force â€Ŕlost profits and business opportunity†type scenarios into a community / marketplace? Does (â€ŔRed Liningâ€Â) uncompetitive and predatory claim settlement â€Ŕnegotiations†rule certain societal regions and demographics? Are older, busy, younger, inexperienced, minimally educated, poor, etc. (Insurer indemnified consumer’s) special targets for under-assessed / underpaid claims?
18. Adjusters can be messengers-accomplices to Insurer / Carrier â€Ŕinstructions†for unfair claim settlement practices. Beware of such potential in daily (single) or CAT (high volume catastrophe) claim settlement scenarios.
19. Are â€Ŕnegotiations / consultations†between your â€ŔContractor-of-Choice†and your insurance adjuster â€Ŕsabotaged†by the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster? By using a limited-narrow â€Ŕinterpretation†of pubic adjusting business definitions and duties, and [similar] construction business definitions and duties, an Insurer can now claim a Contractor is â€Ŕillegally†acting as Public Adjuster (PA). This helps the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster to â€Ŕnegotiate†directly with a [construction business naïve] homeowner only.
Consequently, a Contractor>Client>Adjuster>Client>Contractor>Client>Adjuster>Client >Contractor…communication circle-(circus) is [irrationally] Insurer implemented, replacing concise Contractor-Adjuster damage assessment / estimate problem solving processes. Working, naïve, busy, disabled, elderly, etc. consumers are put under unnecessary duress from Insurer-Agent-Adjuster.
20. Is the â€Ŕappraisal†process a [prematurely] used â€Ŕnegotiation†tool of choice for insurers against their clients? Inherent claim settlement delays are set into motion with such, in effect, â€Ŕclaim severity (payout) control†strategy.
21. Does the Insurer-Adjuster live up to their obligation to properly verify-assess all Contractor-Consumer suspected / discovered property damaged…and thorough reconstruction processes? Is damaged property, and reconstruction processes, arbitrarily dismissed and unfairly subordinate to Insurer-Adjuster estimate â€Ŕtotals†only?
Does the Insurer-Adjuster emphasize their estimates dollar â€ŔTOTAL†and NOT how and why their estimate total was reached?
*Certain insurers claim that â€Ŕloss†repairs require 2 or more specialty trade crafts [i.e.; Roofing, Painting] involvement before a general construction business is â€Ŕwarrantedâ€Â, â€Ŕappropriateâ€Â, â€Ŕindicatedâ€Â. The truly competitive marketplace allows / states otherwise.
I did believe in credit scoring in the past. Then I lost my job and spent 2+ years damaging my credit with slow pays, etc. I could have walked away from my debts with chapter 7 however, I believe that I must pay my debts and not use the courts to avoid them. In the meantime my rates have gone up due to deteriorating credit score. I am the same good driver & homeowner as before but must pay dearly for the higher credit score. My perspective has changed.
From a statistical and actuarial standpoint, there is no doubt that credit scoring is a valid indicator of likelihood of loss.
However, that does not necessarily mean it is the socially correct thing to do.
For life insurance, there is no doubt whatsoever that the mortality rate of African-Americans is higher than that of caucasians. However, life insurance companies do not charge higher rates to African-Americans because it is simply the wrong thing to do.
My point is that just because some rating criteria has a definite correlation does not necessarily mean it should be used.
I think credit scoring as just a ploy for the large insurance industry to take advantage of the hard working people of this so called united states. If we were united then all states would have the same policies for these types of mandated needs all must have in order to own a vehicle or home. I think the big pocket books have lined the politians wallets to pass these laws to benefit yet again the privilaged at the underprivilaged and hard working back bone of this country. We should be only charged higher premiums if we are a greater risk due to poor driving records or excessive losses on our home owners policies, not due to credit history. If everyone in this country got paid a fair wage everyone would have good credit. The ones we should credit rate are the corporates telling us how to live and be regulated. Let’s all hope the court does get this right and this will become a chain reaction flowing down to all other insurance companies and ALL States.
AS A LICENSED INSURANCE AGENT, I THINK
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE SOME NERVE USING CREDIT SCORES TO EVALUATE
UNDERWRITING RISK. CLAIMS RECORDS
ARE ENOUGH. WE ARE BECOMING A BUNCH OF CREDIT NAZIS IN THIS COUNTRY. AND BELIEVE ME, EVEN IF A PERSON DOES NOT MAKE A CLAIM OR PAYS BILLS ON TIME,
CREDIT REPORTS CAN BE ATTACHED BY
UNSAVORY BUSINESSES. LET’S END THAT
FIRST.
Statistically, credit is an effective predictor for a poor risk. That being said, all of you seem to act as though this is the only tool an insurer uses. I believe MVRs and CLUE reports are a good indicator as well. Credit rating should still be used in combination with other information.
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.
I worked once for ALLSTATE. I have perfect credit…perfect. I am 48 years old. I scored a 2! Wonder what it takes to be a one.
Do people with bad credit have more losses than those who have good credit? statistically–yes… Insurance, by nature is legalized discrimination. However, just because you can show a pattern– does it make it right to use it? No. I’m sure you could show dumb people have more losses than smart people. Do we get an IQ score to determine their rate? Most Co’s treat no credit as bad credit– this harshly discriminates against minority groups who use only CASH.
I have read all the posted comments and the one that I totally agree with is the one written by “pan”. He/She hit it right on the head!!!!! I worked as an Underwriter for the Hartford Ins. Company for 23 years. They were one of the first ins. companies to use Credit scoring. It DOES discrimate against the poorer/middle class people which includes alot of minority people. It is much easier to pay your bills on time when your earning $100,000+ a year than it is when you are struggling to survive on $20,000+. Insurance Companies do NOT underwrite any more. They have the computers programmed that “screen” every application for credit scoring, past claim history, location, etc. BEFORE it is even sent to an Underwriter to “review”. Underwriters are not allowed to use “judgment” anymore in their decisions on whether or not a risk is acceptable – that is why I retired from the Corporate rat race. Credit scoring should be abolished – the only one who is benefiting from Credit Scoring is the profit being made by the Insurance Companies! BUT – these ins. companies are NOT lowering their rates, nor are they paying claims any better!!
The State of Texas initiated a study last year to try and determine the fairness/effectiveness of insurance scoreing. The study concluded that the correlation between loss cost and insurance score was so significant (.95 with the highest possible being 1.0), that it was an INDEPENDENT predictor of risk and provided insurance companies an effective and fair means of discriminating(read segmenting)between various risks. Many customers get great discounts, and rightyfully so, because their propensity to file a claim is lower.
Veiled Insurer-To-Consumer Claim Theft-Robbery Warning Signs.
How Insurers Can Keep Money Owed To Homeowners.
-If â€Ŕlosses†could talk…
1. Do the Insurers-Adjusters use discernibly measurable â€Ŕget in, cut a check, and get out†claim estimating and settlement schemes that set-up homeowners for a time consuming-bogged-down challenge of the Insurers-Adjusters understated damaged property assessment and estimate values?
Does their construction business / claim settlement estimating software thoroughly define actual and itemized construction products, processes and pricing references so as to be able to reasonably anticipate thoroughly â€Ŕfixing†a given â€Ŕloss†scenario…in any given region of the country? Do Insurers-Adjusters estimates unreasonably â€Ŕignore†that construction business data?
2. Is it reasonably clear and evident [hail, wind, fire, moisture, flood, etc.] property damage is consistently â€Ŕmissed†by Insurer-Adjusters’ estimates? Claim under-assessment / underpayment will follow. When ALL damage is (eventually) verified by another adjuster, are verifiably unsafe-lowball-substandard repair or replacement processes and pricing still offered by the Insurer-Adjuster in the name of â€Ŕnegotiating the claimâ€�
3. Is so called local â€Ŕcompetitive estimating practice†being â€Ŕinvented†by Insurer to confuse and discourage consumer from using [competent-high quality] skilled-competitively priced, contractors? Do the Insurer-Agent / Broker-Adjuster subtly â€Ŕsuggest†that you, the homeowner, find another Contractor if the [market competitive] Contractor estimate is not to their liking?
4. The Adjusters property damage-repair assessment / estimate â€Ŕtestifies†as to whether a specific single trade craft or multiple trade crafts are warranted for â€Ŕloss†repair or replacement. Does the adjusters estimate to the consumer then contradictorily deny that multiple trade â€Ŕloss†repairs require G.C. oversight and costs?
5. Your policy allows for appropriate â€Ŕcontractor[s]-of-choiceâ€Â. Does the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster try to [force-coerce] you, the homeowner, to act as your own â€Ŕcontractor†by using unfair and deceptive claim assessment-estimate value theory â€Ŕtestimony†via ignored / contradictory policy language entitlement interpretations in their estimate?
6. Does the Insurer-Adjuster invent reason[s] why it is fair and reasonable for you to trust and manage roofing, carpet, etc. tradesmen, verses having a / your (trusted and experienced) Contractor doing the same as part of the whole [G.C.] supported project scope?
7. Does the Insurer-Adjuster try to â€Ŕchoose†the contractor the homeowner is â€Ŕentitled to†by unfairly / illegally ignoring the contractual relationship of the contractor and the homeowner, and sending their own â€Ŕpreferred†contractors to attempt to lure the insured to break the existing contractor-client relationship?
8. Are commonly known materials and labor and overhead costs irrationally and unfairly â€Ŕbundled†and not line itemed for verifying ALL contractors’ financial investment accountability-purchase, installation and profit costs? Are consumer proven, construction repair-replacement deficiencies (in the adjusters’ / contractors’ assessment-estimates), ignored by the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster?
9. Is â€ŔLoss†defined-anticipated [prima fascia / quantum meruit] Contractor / G.C. labor and 10% / 10% overhead and profit (OHP) values excluded-robbed from the Insurer-Adjuster-to-Consumer estimate? Are G.C. quantified* â€Ŕloss†damage scope and repair processes (that inherently define intrinsic claim estimate structure-settlement procedures and protocol norms) faked by the Adjuster and supported by the Insurer-Agent?
Does mathematically fair and reasonable Contractor-G.C. (Primary-General Contractor labor and Contractor overhead and profit margin data (10/10) â€Ŕappear / disappear†on the Insurer / Adjuster-Consumer delivered estimate? Is Contractor- G.C. 10% overhead and profit truly and actually accounted for? Do the math for yourself.
(E.g. $8,000.00 + 10% ($800.00) overhead = $8,800.00 = (Whole Contractor Repair-Reconstruction Investment) + 10% Profit ($880.00) = $9,680.00 total estimate value.
Notice the 10% profit value is truly 10% of the whole investment? Be careful of this particular value sum total being underpaid by the Insurer-Adjuster. (See paragraph 12)
10. Are actual G.C., Builder, etc. Contractor [material, labor, taxes, overhead, (general conditions, equipment, bonds, phone bills, permits, etc.) and profit] factors and values of the claim, that are reasonably and readily known to be needed by the Adjusters’ â€ŔContractor estimate modelâ€Â, intentionally and contradictorily denied (not voluntarily accounted for and forwarded), in the Adjuster-to-Consumer estimate, even before a Contractor is hired?
11. â€ŔImplied-in-fact†contract theory. When the â€ŔLoss†implies that policy claim protocol values equivocal to specialty or G.C., Builder, Remodeling business processes and values exist…does the Insurer-Adjuster [knowingly] provide a fake / deceptive rendering of those business process values to unsuspecting consumers via an under assessed-underpaid claim estimate / settlement â€Ŕofferâ€�
12. Does the Insurer-Adjuster submit arbitrary claim settlement estimating practice totals that do not reflect â€Ŕreasonable-to-conclude†construction business estimating norms? (E.g. G.C. Roofing, carpet, etc. sub-trade investment is removed from a G.C. valued estimate and then G.C. overhead and profit margins are totaled).
13. Has the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster implied or stated irrational-nonsensical rhetoric designed to trick and confuse consumers? Are simple addition / subtraction construction business processes and estimating value math facts avoided, twisted or lied about? (E.g. ‘Roofing contractor 10% / 10% overhead and profit margins is included in the value of your estimate, soooo, the Primary General Contractor overhead and profit investment values are supposed to be less than 10% / 10%’). This is very, very popular Insurer-to-Adjuster-to-Consumer trickery that underpays claims / claim values.
14. Do Insurers claim-imply to consumers that G.C. quantified â€Ŕloss†dollars are not commensurably (â€Ŕprima fasciaâ€Â-â€Ŕquantum meruitâ€Â) due / owed a hired or [â€Ŕloss†defined-anticipated] G.C. business model?
15. Do Insurers-Agents-Adjusters imply to consumers that their claim estimate alone is the first / final word (equivocal remuneration fix and fulfillment) in settling the construction products, reconstruction-restoration processes and pricing of the â€Ŕlossâ€�
16. The implied intent of an Insurer-Adjuster assessed â€Ŕloss†estimate is to â€Ŕput someone back to where they were before the â€Ŕincident†created the â€Ŕlossâ€Ââ€Â…and ALL that that can mean. Is the â€Ŕtestimony†of the Insurer-Adjuster-Consumer paperwork, delivered to the homeowner, true or untrue in the specific and overall nature of its discovery, disclosure? Does the Insurer-Adjuster assessment-estimate prove truly good faith damage scope verification and generally appropriate repair processes and cost values have been (Insurer-Adjuster) attempted / fulfilled?
17. Does the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster try to force â€Ŕlost profits and business opportunity†type scenarios into a community / marketplace? Does (â€ŔRed Liningâ€Â) uncompetitive and predatory claim settlement â€Ŕnegotiations†rule certain societal regions and demographics? Are older, busy, younger, inexperienced, minimally educated, poor, etc. (Insurer indemnified consumer’s) special targets for under-assessed / underpaid claims?
18. Adjusters can be messengers-accomplices to Insurer / Carrier â€Ŕinstructions†for unfair claim settlement practices. Beware of such potential in daily (single) or CAT (high volume catastrophe) claim settlement scenarios.
19. Are â€Ŕnegotiations / consultations†between your â€ŔContractor-of-Choice†and your insurance adjuster â€Ŕsabotaged†by the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster? By using a limited-narrow â€Ŕinterpretation†of pubic adjusting business definitions and duties, and [similar] construction business definitions and duties, an Insurer can now claim a Contractor is â€Ŕillegally†acting as Public Adjuster (PA). This helps the Insurer-Agent-Adjuster to â€Ŕnegotiate†directly with a [construction business naïve] homeowner only.
Consequently, a Contractor>Client>Adjuster>Client>Contractor>Client>Adjuster>Client >Contractor…communication circle-(circus) is [irrationally] Insurer implemented, replacing concise Contractor-Adjuster damage assessment / estimate problem solving processes. Working, naïve, busy, disabled, elderly, etc. consumers are put under unnecessary duress from Insurer-Agent-Adjuster.
20. Is the â€Ŕappraisal†process a [prematurely] used â€Ŕnegotiation†tool of choice for insurers against their clients? Inherent claim settlement delays are set into motion with such, in effect, â€Ŕclaim severity (payout) control†strategy.
21. Does the Insurer-Adjuster live up to their obligation to properly verify-assess all Contractor-Consumer suspected / discovered property damaged…and thorough reconstruction processes? Is damaged property, and reconstruction processes, arbitrarily dismissed and unfairly subordinate to Insurer-Adjuster estimate â€Ŕtotals†only?
Does the Insurer-Adjuster emphasize their estimates dollar â€ŔTOTAL†and NOT how and why their estimate total was reached?
*Certain insurers claim that â€Ŕloss†repairs require 2 or more specialty trade crafts [i.e.; Roofing, Painting] involvement before a general construction business is â€Ŕwarrantedâ€Â, â€Ŕappropriateâ€Â, â€Ŕindicatedâ€Â. The truly competitive marketplace allows / states otherwise.
I did believe in credit scoring in the past. Then I lost my job and spent 2+ years damaging my credit with slow pays, etc. I could have walked away from my debts with chapter 7 however, I believe that I must pay my debts and not use the courts to avoid them. In the meantime my rates have gone up due to deteriorating credit score. I am the same good driver & homeowner as before but must pay dearly for the higher credit score. My perspective has changed.
From a statistical and actuarial standpoint, there is no doubt that credit scoring is a valid indicator of likelihood of loss.
However, that does not necessarily mean it is the socially correct thing to do.
For life insurance, there is no doubt whatsoever that the mortality rate of African-Americans is higher than that of caucasians. However, life insurance companies do not charge higher rates to African-Americans because it is simply the wrong thing to do.
My point is that just because some rating criteria has a definite correlation does not necessarily mean it should be used.
I think credit scoring as just a ploy for the large insurance industry to take advantage of the hard working people of this so called united states. If we were united then all states would have the same policies for these types of mandated needs all must have in order to own a vehicle or home. I think the big pocket books have lined the politians wallets to pass these laws to benefit yet again the privilaged at the underprivilaged and hard working back bone of this country. We should be only charged higher premiums if we are a greater risk due to poor driving records or excessive losses on our home owners policies, not due to credit history. If everyone in this country got paid a fair wage everyone would have good credit. The ones we should credit rate are the corporates telling us how to live and be regulated. Let’s all hope the court does get this right and this will become a chain reaction flowing down to all other insurance companies and ALL States.
AS A LICENSED INSURANCE AGENT, I THINK
THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE SOME NERVE USING CREDIT SCORES TO EVALUATE
UNDERWRITING RISK. CLAIMS RECORDS
ARE ENOUGH. WE ARE BECOMING A BUNCH OF CREDIT NAZIS IN THIS COUNTRY. AND BELIEVE ME, EVEN IF A PERSON DOES NOT MAKE A CLAIM OR PAYS BILLS ON TIME,
CREDIT REPORTS CAN BE ATTACHED BY
UNSAVORY BUSINESSES. LET’S END THAT
FIRST.
Statistically, credit is an effective predictor for a poor risk. That being said, all of you seem to act as though this is the only tool an insurer uses. I believe MVRs and CLUE reports are a good indicator as well. Credit rating should still be used in combination with other information.