I don\’t think there suing because their credit sucks. They are suing because they feel they were not getting proper notice. The fact is that credit scoring and accident ratio\’s have a direct Correlation to each other. It there wasn\’t then credit scoring would have been thrown out years ago.
How is it NOT fair for the person paying for their own damages to not get a better rate? You\’re saying someone who claimed all three should pay the same as the person who only claimed 1. And, if a people with excellent credit are shown to pay for more of their own damamge, then their rate is fairly lower than those shown to not pay for their own damage. People who take more from the pot should put more in. It\’s only fair.
The point being missed here is that the information being used is, to say the least, suspect. Even the information being recorded and reported by your own insurer is fraught with errors. Been there and seen it. Try getting it corrected. Have you tried getting something corrected on your credit report? My credit report shows I lived in Pennsylvania, while working in Houston. Whew, what a commute!
As for my own credit score, it\’s been all over the board in 35 years. Ugly, when young and 3 children to feed, now in the upper range. But…. auto claims in 35 years? ZERO Accidents in 35 years? ZERO Tickets in 35 years? ONE, 1976!
As for the statistics, has anyone actually seen these statistics? Who was it that said \”Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics\”, Twain?
IF 80 TO 90% OF ALL HOME LOSSES ARE DUE TO WEATHER, WHY IS THE CREDIT SCORE DISCOUNT FOR HOMEOWNERS 36% FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE HIGHEST CREDIT SCORES? ALSO, A MUCH GREATER PERCENTAGE OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE BEST CREDIT SCORES ARE MORE AFFULENT, BETTER EDUCATED, BETTER JOBS AND MORE EXPENSIVE HOMES. ???????
I think your statistics are totally out of left field. 80-90% of homeowners losses due to weather? I think not. With all the other losses that homeowners suffer (theft, fire, vandalism, broken pipes, etc.) that percentage is way too high. Most losses are NOT weather related. As for wealthier folks having good credit scores and consequently lower premiums, there is a statistical tie between credit scores and losses.
CAT losses are the exception, for sure, but in our area we don\’t get hit by hurricanes so why should that be a concern?
It seems to me that the \”liberal\” crowd seems to think that if someone has a good credit score then there is something wrong with granting recognition of that fact. Folks with good credit scores do tend to submit fewer claims, let the premiums recognize that and stop having them subsidize the folks who submit the most claims.
I had a wind storm damage/Farmers only paid part of claim/Farmers originally designated as a CAT Claim (Catastrophic Claim)/ I acted Pro Se..to sue in Seattle Superior Court/as punishment to me for standing up to them as Pre Se in court Farmers deleted the Cat Claim designation on Insur Score C.L.U.E. files so that any insurance I got..would cost me more in rates from any insurance company as all insurance companies get a report from C.L.U.E. then they determine what rate to charge you based on the C.L.U.E. report of claims. C.L.U.E. report advises they cannot change or delete any information, all information comes from the carrier..in this case Farmers/ Farmers also removed from the C.L.U.E. report all prior years of vehicle insurance I had with them.. so now the C.L.U.E. report lists under my vehicle insurance various policies.. as a lapse in vehicle coverage..nice huh?? it\’s all true..I can prove it..
If anyone has information on Farmers Insurance with same or similiar dealings with CAT claims or change, or delete information into the C.L.U.E. insurance records, please reply to this e-mail. lindabina@comcast.net
Answering your question the Insurance Journal recently cited a report that trial lawyers are filing nine times more lawsuits now than they did in the 1950s even when the statistical factors are adjusted as to population and number of lawyers. Trial lawyers love to pick a target and go after it \”en mass\” as in breast implants, asbestos, mold, et. That\’s why trial lawyers live in such big houses, if you haven\’t noticed. The problem with credit scoring is that using the law of greater numbers is unfair to individuals. At least with the old system of tickets and accidents used for rating risk, the individuals\’ record determined their rating fate. I have had numerous customers over the years with lousy credit scores, but good driving records and no at-fault claims. I feel that having these folks pay higher rates is unfair; however, Farmers is having to compete in a very competitive market and do the best they can under the circumstances. As they explained to us agents, \”If we don\’t use credit scoring then you will loose your safest drivers with the best credit to the companies that use credit scoring because they have lower rates for them using that system.\” Farmers communicated with their agents and many of us resisted credit scoring, but in fairness to Farmers they had to compete or loose more market share when their competitors changed the rules of the game. Farmers was among the last of the companies to implement credit scoring.
You seem to answer your own question…. Farmers has the database to rate their customers accordingly (along with CLUE, etc) Farmers should offer their best, AND MOST COMPETITIVE RATES, to the clients in their database that don\’t have tickets and/or at-fault claims. They weren\’t forced to use credit, they either are doing it so they can discriminate across the board against low income groups or they\’ve been duped by all of Fair-Isaacs sales pitches, just like the sales pitches that Farmers has hounded their agents with for years. It\’s all hype and a way for the companies to accomplish some goal of theirs that none of us truly understand….
Lastly, look carefully at what you said:
You say Farmers said that you were going to loose YOUR BEST DRIVERS with \”THE BEST CREDIT SCORES\” to the competition if they didn\’t change. They\’re telling you that they do know who the best drivers are and the solution is simple\” OFFER THEM A DAMN COMPETITIVE RATE SO THE CUSTOMER IS HAPPY AND THE COMPANY CAN COMPETE! What\’s the problem???? DOUG B. OKC,OK
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 don\’t think there suing because their credit sucks. They are suing because they feel they were not getting proper notice. The fact is that credit scoring and accident ratio\’s have a direct Correlation to each other. It there wasn\’t then credit scoring would have been thrown out years ago.
Credit use has been thrown out and prohibited from being used in over a dozen \”consumer protection conscious\” States. More will follow.
Scooby\’s-
How is it NOT fair for the person paying for their own damages to not get a better rate? You\’re saying someone who claimed all three should pay the same as the person who only claimed 1. And, if a people with excellent credit are shown to pay for more of their own damamge, then their rate is fairly lower than those shown to not pay for their own damage. People who take more from the pot should put more in. It\’s only fair.
The point being missed here is that the information being used is, to say the least, suspect. Even the information being recorded and reported by your own insurer is fraught with errors. Been there and seen it. Try getting it corrected. Have you tried getting something corrected on your credit report? My credit report shows I lived in Pennsylvania, while working in Houston. Whew, what a commute!
As for my own credit score, it\’s been all over the board in 35 years. Ugly, when young and 3 children to feed, now in the upper range. But…. auto claims in 35 years? ZERO Accidents in 35 years? ZERO Tickets in 35 years? ONE, 1976!
As for the statistics, has anyone actually seen these statistics? Who was it that said \”Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics\”, Twain?
The problem is really the data being used
IF 80 TO 90% OF ALL HOME LOSSES ARE DUE TO WEATHER, WHY IS THE CREDIT SCORE DISCOUNT FOR HOMEOWNERS 36% FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THE HIGHEST CREDIT SCORES? ALSO, A MUCH GREATER PERCENTAGE OF THE FOLKS WHO HAVE THE BEST CREDIT SCORES ARE MORE AFFULENT, BETTER EDUCATED, BETTER JOBS AND MORE EXPENSIVE HOMES. ???????
I think your statistics are totally out of left field. 80-90% of homeowners losses due to weather? I think not. With all the other losses that homeowners suffer (theft, fire, vandalism, broken pipes, etc.) that percentage is way too high. Most losses are NOT weather related. As for wealthier folks having good credit scores and consequently lower premiums, there is a statistical tie between credit scores and losses.
CAT losses are the exception, for sure, but in our area we don\’t get hit by hurricanes so why should that be a concern?
It seems to me that the \”liberal\” crowd seems to think that if someone has a good credit score then there is something wrong with granting recognition of that fact. Folks with good credit scores do tend to submit fewer claims, let the premiums recognize that and stop having them subsidize the folks who submit the most claims.
I had a wind storm damage/Farmers only paid part of claim/Farmers originally designated as a CAT Claim (Catastrophic Claim)/ I acted Pro Se..to sue in Seattle Superior Court/as punishment to me for standing up to them as Pre Se in court Farmers deleted the Cat Claim designation on Insur Score C.L.U.E. files so that any insurance I got..would cost me more in rates from any insurance company as all insurance companies get a report from C.L.U.E. then they determine what rate to charge you based on the C.L.U.E. report of claims. C.L.U.E. report advises they cannot change or delete any information, all information comes from the carrier..in this case Farmers/ Farmers also removed from the C.L.U.E. report all prior years of vehicle insurance I had with them.. so now the C.L.U.E. report lists under my vehicle insurance various policies.. as a lapse in vehicle coverage..nice huh?? it\’s all true..I can prove it..
If anyone has information on Farmers Insurance with same or similiar dealings with CAT claims or change, or delete information into the C.L.U.E. insurance records, please reply to this e-mail.
lindabina@comcast.net
Answering your question the Insurance Journal recently cited a report that trial lawyers are filing nine times more lawsuits now than they did in the 1950s even when the statistical factors are adjusted as to population and number of lawyers. Trial lawyers love to pick a target and go after it \”en mass\” as in breast implants, asbestos, mold, et. That\’s why trial lawyers live in such big houses, if you haven\’t noticed. The problem with credit scoring is that using the law of greater numbers is unfair to individuals. At least with the old system of tickets and accidents used for rating risk, the individuals\’ record determined their rating fate. I have had numerous customers over the years with lousy credit scores, but good driving records and no at-fault claims. I feel that having these folks pay higher rates is unfair; however, Farmers is having to compete in a very competitive market and do the best they can under the circumstances. As they explained to us agents, \”If we don\’t use credit scoring then you will loose your safest drivers with the best credit to the companies that use credit scoring because they have lower rates for them using that system.\” Farmers communicated with their agents and many of us resisted credit scoring, but in fairness to Farmers they had to compete or loose more market share when their competitors changed the rules of the game. Farmers was among the last of the companies to implement credit scoring.
You seem to answer your own question…. Farmers has the database to rate their customers accordingly (along with CLUE, etc) Farmers should offer their best, AND MOST COMPETITIVE RATES, to the clients in their database that don\’t have tickets and/or at-fault claims. They weren\’t forced to use credit, they either are doing it so they can discriminate across the board against low income groups or they\’ve been duped by all of Fair-Isaacs sales pitches, just like the sales pitches that Farmers has hounded their agents with for years. It\’s all hype and a way for the companies to accomplish some goal of theirs that none of us truly understand….
Lastly, look carefully at what you said:
You say Farmers said that you were going to loose YOUR BEST DRIVERS with \”THE BEST CREDIT SCORES\” to the competition if they didn\’t change. They\’re telling you that they do know who the best drivers are and the solution is simple\” OFFER THEM A DAMN COMPETITIVE RATE SO THE CUSTOMER IS HAPPY AND THE COMPANY CAN COMPETE! What\’s the problem???? DOUG B. OKC,OK