While I think the credit rating system unfairly penalizes many folks, I am also very tired of having people tell me that they have fabulous credit, no claims and always had continuous coverage, only to find out that their credit sucks, they\’ve had 4 accidents in the last 4 years and never paid on time. If I wanted clients to lie to me all day, I would have become a lawyer, not an insurance agent.
The problem in this one is, Farmers, as far as I know, leaves it up to its agents to supply the FCRA Notice. I doubt many agents took it seriously. But come on, people need to get a grasp on their situation and know your credit information. Not many people I know really care about getting that FCRA notice, they know if they have good or bad credit.
Are there too many unemployed trial attorneys out there or does this company suck as bad as they say? Farmers gets you back to where you belong…..in court.
Let me get this straight.
I act responsible all my life and protect my credit rating and I get thrown in the same pot as irresposible people who spend lavishly for all the creature comforts not matter what the ramifications????
Where\’s the incentive?
It goes against Human Nature.
It is often said that credit reporting hurts many folks, but I do believe that it is uncontested that a bad credit report is a good predictor of claims. If this is true, then why shouldn\’t insurance companies be allowed to rate based on a valid metric?
Other factors, such as age, location, driving experience and prior losses are used in most states as part of the rating process, why not include one more to even better provide equitable rating.
For those who have good credit reports, their insurance is going to be less expensive (all othere things being equal). Insurance companies MUST make profits, it is the first concern of any company. Let them charge for the risk posed by the insureds.
The whole problem with using credit history is related to the average consumer\’s ability to understand how credit impacts potential claims. Data supports the correlation but the average consumer asks what an ability to pay bills has to do with an ability to drive responsibly. Without the logical correlation between the credit score and how it directly relates to claims, consumers are not going to find the practice socially acceptable.
Data also supports that individuals in certain occupations tend to have more accidents. Why aren\’t lawyers (in the top ten) charged higher rates? Why aren\’t teachers (in the lower rankings) charged less? I suspect the answer is political…
It isn\’t hard to understand why lawyers aren\’t charged more than some other group. Can you imagine the number of law suits that would fly if that happened, no matter what any studies show? Actuarial truths would have no place in a lawers world.
I just moved my office. My new landlord checked my credit. I also opened a new bank account. My credit got checked. I also bought a new cell phone for my busienss. My credit got checked.
My credit score for insurance purposes just went down the toilet for absolutely no reason. I have no late pays but my credit score sucks.
It also takes me about a half-hour to do a quote instead of the 5 minutes it used to.
There are countless other reasons why credit scoring should be eliminated. Rates should be based on past loss experience, and nothing else.
P. S. Did those people with great credit scores fare any better in New Orleans?????
NOT!
So, someone who has owned the same home 10 years, has had the same checking account for 15 years, and the same phone company for 5 years seems a lot more stable and responsible than someone moving and changing everything around. It makes perfect sense. Why should I pay more, becuase I DO have a good insurance score, because someone else with a bad one wants me to subsidize their rates? When used IN CONJUNCTION with claim free discounts, etc, it\’s perfectly fair.
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.
While I think the credit rating system unfairly penalizes many folks, I am also very tired of having people tell me that they have fabulous credit, no claims and always had continuous coverage, only to find out that their credit sucks, they\’ve had 4 accidents in the last 4 years and never paid on time. If I wanted clients to lie to me all day, I would have become a lawyer, not an insurance agent.
The problem in this one is, Farmers, as far as I know, leaves it up to its agents to supply the FCRA Notice. I doubt many agents took it seriously. But come on, people need to get a grasp on their situation and know your credit information. Not many people I know really care about getting that FCRA notice, they know if they have good or bad credit.
Are there too many unemployed trial attorneys out there or does this company suck as bad as they say? Farmers gets you back to where you belong…..in court.
Let me get this straight.
I act responsible all my life and protect my credit rating and I get thrown in the same pot as irresposible people who spend lavishly for all the creature comforts not matter what the ramifications????
Where\’s the incentive?
It goes against Human Nature.
It is often said that credit reporting hurts many folks, but I do believe that it is uncontested that a bad credit report is a good predictor of claims. If this is true, then why shouldn\’t insurance companies be allowed to rate based on a valid metric?
Other factors, such as age, location, driving experience and prior losses are used in most states as part of the rating process, why not include one more to even better provide equitable rating.
For those who have good credit reports, their insurance is going to be less expensive (all othere things being equal). Insurance companies MUST make profits, it is the first concern of any company. Let them charge for the risk posed by the insureds.
The whole problem with using credit history is related to the average consumer\’s ability to understand how credit impacts potential claims. Data supports the correlation but the average consumer asks what an ability to pay bills has to do with an ability to drive responsibly. Without the logical correlation between the credit score and how it directly relates to claims, consumers are not going to find the practice socially acceptable.
Data also supports that individuals in certain occupations tend to have more accidents. Why aren\’t lawyers (in the top ten) charged higher rates? Why aren\’t teachers (in the lower rankings) charged less? I suspect the answer is political…
It isn\’t hard to understand why lawyers aren\’t charged more than some other group. Can you imagine the number of law suits that would fly if that happened, no matter what any studies show? Actuarial truths would have no place in a lawers world.
I just moved my office. My new landlord checked my credit. I also opened a new bank account. My credit got checked. I also bought a new cell phone for my busienss. My credit got checked.
My credit score for insurance purposes just went down the toilet for absolutely no reason. I have no late pays but my credit score sucks.
It also takes me about a half-hour to do a quote instead of the 5 minutes it used to.
There are countless other reasons why credit scoring should be eliminated. Rates should be based on past loss experience, and nothing else.
P. S. Did those people with great credit scores fare any better in New Orleans?????
NOT!
So, someone who has owned the same home 10 years, has had the same checking account for 15 years, and the same phone company for 5 years seems a lot more stable and responsible than someone moving and changing everything around. It makes perfect sense. Why should I pay more, becuase I DO have a good insurance score, because someone else with a bad one wants me to subsidize their rates? When used IN CONJUNCTION with claim free discounts, etc, it\’s perfectly fair.
Mark – What you said