If memory serves, it was a relatively small geographical, but populous area in So. California that got the stupid thing passed & not by a great margin, either. The whales in the river are better than Quackamendi.
Didn\’t the DOI approve the rates Allstate is charging? If Allstate\’s experience has improved the DOI could reject their request for an increase or insist on a rate reduction but a refund? \’doesn\’t make a lot of sense.
I find it curious that the California regulator would expend resources in forcing the refund \”excessive rates,\” at least some of which will presumably used to build surplus…funds that will be used to pay policyholder claims in the event of a disaster. What happened to the free market sytem where customer could simply take their business elsewhere if they did not like the price of the product? By the way, I wonder how the Commissioner will decide what is an \”excessive rate.\” Is that with or without taking into account the next cycle of floods, mudlsides, droughts, fires and earthquakes? If somwhere down the road the company finds itself paying out more than it collected in premiums, I don\’t suppose the Commissioner will come back and hold more permit it to recoup this refund on the grounds its rates turned out to be inadequate. I respectfully suggest that if the Allstate\’s rates are too high, consumers would be better served if the Department of Insurance posted its competitor\’s rates on its website and let the market decide.
I think, after reading these posts, that most readers are disgusted with Allstate and their heavy handed tactics. They drew this negative attention on themselves with their pre-emptive decision to stop new business combined with a large rate increase on potential future claims. I for one laugh myself silly when their TV actor pitchman ends each commercial lionizing Allstate with the now famous \”that\’s Allstate\’s stand\”. This is a wake up call for all independent agents in California: PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF WHO IS REACTING TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. If you guys don\’t take aggressive action, State Farm and other captives will inflict themselves and their deceptive practices on your future policyholders. Get them now.
wasn’t there a clause in prop 103 that said if an insurance company sold insurance in the state they had to sell ALL lines of the insurance they are licensed to sell? I did not think they could cherry pick the type of insurance they wanted. I may be wrong on this so if anyone can refresh me i would appreciate it.
no such regulation in prop 103…there may be one of that kind somewhere else but not in 103.
what\’s interesting is california brought this on themselves by passing prop 103. They wanted to get rid of open regulation (i.e. free enterprise) and they sure did. Criticism should go to the voters, not the insurance commissioner (no, i\’m no friend of Poizner but he\’s marginally better than garamendi anyway); they decided it was a good idea to regulate rates and put that responsibility onto the commish.
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.
If memory serves, it was a relatively small geographical, but populous area in So. California that got the stupid thing passed & not by a great margin, either. The whales in the river are better than Quackamendi.
Didn\’t the DOI approve the rates Allstate is charging? If Allstate\’s experience has improved the DOI could reject their request for an increase or insist on a rate reduction but a refund? \’doesn\’t make a lot of sense.
Let the games begin!!
Anyone want to buy an Allstate Agency, cheap?
I find it curious that the California regulator would expend resources in forcing the refund \”excessive rates,\” at least some of which will presumably used to build surplus…funds that will be used to pay policyholder claims in the event of a disaster. What happened to the free market sytem where customer could simply take their business elsewhere if they did not like the price of the product? By the way, I wonder how the Commissioner will decide what is an \”excessive rate.\” Is that with or without taking into account the next cycle of floods, mudlsides, droughts, fires and earthquakes? If somwhere down the road the company finds itself paying out more than it collected in premiums, I don\’t suppose the Commissioner will come back and hold more permit it to recoup this refund on the grounds its rates turned out to be inadequate. I respectfully suggest that if the Allstate\’s rates are too high, consumers would be better served if the Department of Insurance posted its competitor\’s rates on its website and let the market decide.
If the people feel their Allstate rates are higher than what they want to pay they can go elsewhere. It\’s called FREE ENTERPRISE.
Why should the taxpayers of California pay for a Bureaucrat to decide?
can we do the same thing for oil goughing?perhaps all the progressive minds in the state Capitol could caucus on this..JIM
I think, after reading these posts, that most readers are disgusted with Allstate and their heavy handed tactics. They drew this negative attention on themselves with their pre-emptive decision to stop new business combined with a large rate increase on potential future claims. I for one laugh myself silly when their TV actor pitchman ends each commercial lionizing Allstate with the now famous \”that\’s Allstate\’s stand\”. This is a wake up call for all independent agents in California: PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF WHO IS REACTING TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. If you guys don\’t take aggressive action, State Farm and other captives will inflict themselves and their deceptive practices on your future policyholders. Get them now.
wasn’t there a clause in prop 103 that said if an insurance company sold insurance in the state they had to sell ALL lines of the insurance they are licensed to sell? I did not think they could cherry pick the type of insurance they wanted. I may be wrong on this so if anyone can refresh me i would appreciate it.
no such regulation in prop 103…there may be one of that kind somewhere else but not in 103.
what\’s interesting is california brought this on themselves by passing prop 103. They wanted to get rid of open regulation (i.e. free enterprise) and they sure did. Criticism should go to the voters, not the insurance commissioner (no, i\’m no friend of Poizner but he\’s marginally better than garamendi anyway); they decided it was a good idea to regulate rates and put that responsibility onto the commish.