Didn’t a few years back the insurance commissioner fight with Mercury Insurance on the issue of a persistency discount that rewarded drivers who maintained coverage?
With the garbage they have to deal with in personal lines I am glad I am now 100% commercial lines. The consumer groups get upset when the insurance carriers try to use prior coverage, credit scoring, and zip codes as rating factors. Once the consumer groups realize that over regulation results in increased rates, and decides the free market to compete, we (California consumers) would all be better off.
Long term customers are the worst customers to give a discount to, they never leave anyway! If the free market just plays things out, we all win with better rates. Garamendi speaks from both sides of his mouth, he wants to be governor, so he is pretending to take credit. The democrats are pathetic and full of it!
You’re saying new customers are being discriminated against? Give me a break, these are actuarily proven discounts, State Farm does it everywhere, so does other companies. If you haven’t noticed, insurance companies discriminate against everyone who has a ticket, wreck, lives in a high risk area, etc. It’s just the nature of insurance. California just wants charity insurance, that’s what they want. A one rate for everyone plan.
It is clear that the commissioner is working for his own benefit for his new election, rather than the public. He will claim that he reduced the insurance premium rates for Californians since State Farm is the largest auto insurer in California. Californians want rates that are non-excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory and this approval discriminates against new policyholders. As a result, new customers won’t be able to afford insurance, but the commissioner will take credit for reducing insurance rates and saving millions of dollars. I wonder why the commissioner fought with Mercury Insurance on the issue of a persistency discount.
There are pros and cons when approving changes. In this case, the approval will push people that already lack coverage to continue driving without insurance. California is known to be a regulated state, and prices should be appropriate, but after this I believe that we are not competitive nor we are regulated adequately. The insurance industry has been the source of considerable controversy. The insurance industry is all political such as immigration and health care reforms.
Those drivers without prior coverage would end up paying significantly more in premiums to offset the discount offered to those meeting this expanded form of persistency. Commissioner Low determined that persistency conflicts with consumer interests. FTCR contends that the discount provided to one class of drivers must be offset by a surcharge on other drivers. I agree. There are approximately four times as many insured drivers in California as uninsured. The persistency discount would be spread thinly among most already insured drivers. Persistency discount creates another barrier to low-income drivers in becoming insured. The increased number of uninsured motorists in California will push uninsured motorist premiums to rise for insured drivers. The final outcome is that insured drivers are still paying high premiums. Coverage should be affordable for everyone.
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.
Anyway, State Farm has renewal discounts in most states.
Harvey Rosenfield should get right on
this one. It appears that they are
“discriminating” against the folks who have not had prior insurance.
Didn’t a few years back the insurance commissioner fight with Mercury Insurance on the issue of a persistency discount that rewarded drivers who maintained coverage?
With the garbage they have to deal with in personal lines I am glad I am now 100% commercial lines. The consumer groups get upset when the insurance carriers try to use prior coverage, credit scoring, and zip codes as rating factors. Once the consumer groups realize that over regulation results in increased rates, and decides the free market to compete, we (California consumers) would all be better off.
Alan.
Long term customers are the worst customers to give a discount to, they never leave anyway! If the free market just plays things out, we all win with better rates. Garamendi speaks from both sides of his mouth, he wants to be governor, so he is pretending to take credit. The democrats are pathetic and full of it!
You’re saying new customers are being discriminated against? Give me a break, these are actuarily proven discounts, State Farm does it everywhere, so does other companies. If you haven’t noticed, insurance companies discriminate against everyone who has a ticket, wreck, lives in a high risk area, etc. It’s just the nature of insurance. California just wants charity insurance, that’s what they want. A one rate for everyone plan.
It is clear that the commissioner is working for his own benefit for his new election, rather than the public. He will claim that he reduced the insurance premium rates for Californians since State Farm is the largest auto insurer in California. Californians want rates that are non-excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory and this approval discriminates against new policyholders. As a result, new customers won’t be able to afford insurance, but the commissioner will take credit for reducing insurance rates and saving millions of dollars. I wonder why the commissioner fought with Mercury Insurance on the issue of a persistency discount.
There are pros and cons when approving changes. In this case, the approval will push people that already lack coverage to continue driving without insurance. California is known to be a regulated state, and prices should be appropriate, but after this I believe that we are not competitive nor we are regulated adequately. The insurance industry has been the source of considerable controversy. The insurance industry is all political such as immigration and health care reforms.
Good luck everyone.
Those drivers without prior coverage would end up paying significantly more in premiums to offset the discount offered to those meeting this expanded form of persistency. Commissioner Low determined that persistency conflicts with consumer interests. FTCR contends that the discount provided to one class of drivers must be offset by a surcharge on other drivers. I agree. There are approximately four times as many insured drivers in California as uninsured. The persistency discount would be spread thinly among most already insured drivers. Persistency discount creates another barrier to low-income drivers in becoming insured. The increased number of uninsured motorists in California will push uninsured motorist premiums to rise for insured drivers. The final outcome is that insured drivers are still paying high premiums. Coverage should be affordable for everyone.
CA UNDERWRITER & MARK, I Totally agree with both of you, and support your point of views.