Oh, I’m sorry. TRUE No Fault as opposed to the kind that ACTUALLY is implemented by our efficient and wise legislatures. Yeah, you are going to see that in Cali never!
No Fault is the enemy of the powerful attorney lobby and so is naturally ‘holed’ with litigation opportunity before it ever hits the street. This would be especially true in California.
Perhaps consider a new handle. More like Dreame Weaver than Reality Check?
You are exactly right. There are many more attorneys than humans in California.
As for dreaming that’s what Californians do. Unfortunately, they won’t ever see reality until it slaps them in the face. It’s been fun to watch the stupidity come to fruition.
Love the state, hate the stupidity. If it weren’t 2 hours to the ocean, 1 hour to skiing, no earthquakes or wild fires in the central valley, I wouldn’t stay here. Can’t wait for the quake to dump Northern and Southern CA problems away.
By the way, I forgot to thank all of the voters for prop 103 that is finally giving me a raise due to our area spreading the wealth with our premium increases.
17 did not mandate that every carrier provide a ‘loyalty’ discount. Obviously, such discounts are persistency discounts designed to reward those who demonstrate personal responsibility and keep continuous coverage. Prop 17 would have simply allowed carriers to give that discount (as they did for many years) to drivers new to them but who had coverage elsewhere.
To answer the question as to why Mercury would support such a bill? Any company is at a gross disadvantage for getting new customers because the prior carrier can apply a 20%+ discount to their existing customers. Mercury is very competitive but their growth has slowed because consumers get tied to their current carrier due to the non-portability of the persistency discounts.
Prop 103 requires everybody to get the same rate with or without prior ins. So the Joe Schmo who comes in to buy ins, has no prior, just buying because he needs to reg. his car gets the same rate as a person with continuous. Prop 17 was meant to go back to pre 103 and give continuous a better rate than no prior. They just used the words longevity discount with current co to do this.
Actually, Prop 103’s main intent was to do away with territorial rating and enforce a Good Driver Discount”.
The companies were able to come up with “Geographic Rating Zones” and it took the DOI this long to figure it out.
By protecting the “Joe Schmo”, they gave a 16 year old the same rate as a 50 yr old getting their drivers license the same day.
They also took a 70 mile an hour collision with a telephone pole with no BI and made it as minor as a speeding ticket. Add BI to that accident and instead of being a “Good Driver” with a 20% discount and just a small 10 or 15 % surcharge, the rate can double in some carriers if they lose their “loss free discount” too. That’s why it is called Prostitution 103.
Well yeah, 103 did all those things as well. 17 was meant to be able and offer those with continuous a better rate than those with no prior, just like pre 103 days.
Then Mercury simply needs to file better rates. How is it that 21st Century and GEICO regularly beat them? Simple – better rates. Again, why this needs to be legislated rather than filed with the DOI is beyond comprehension. It’s as if Mercury tried to do an end run around that process.
Again, people who have participated in this joke of a system we call insurance should not lose the benefit of a persistency credit after having been responsible in this irresponsible society. They should be able to keep whatever credit they have “earned” and not been given by legislation when they choose to leave for another carrier.
ACTUALLY, the real intent of Prop 103 was to make its author, Harvey Rosenfield, millions upon millions of dollars in intervenor fees. It has succeeded in fulfilling its intent.
Straight up, they are very competitive. Although I see them get beaten by AAA some, it usually if for less coverage or with understated mileage, hidden drivers, misassigned drivers & what not, all the usual dirty tricks. I can rate them against all the other majors in FSC and seldom doe they not have the best rate when all underwriting factors being equal.
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.
Oh, I’m sorry. TRUE No Fault as opposed to the kind that ACTUALLY is implemented by our efficient and wise legislatures. Yeah, you are going to see that in Cali never!
No Fault is the enemy of the powerful attorney lobby and so is naturally ‘holed’ with litigation opportunity before it ever hits the street. This would be especially true in California.
Perhaps consider a new handle. More like Dreame Weaver than Reality Check?
You are exactly right. There are many more attorneys than humans in California.
As for dreaming that’s what Californians do. Unfortunately, they won’t ever see reality until it slaps them in the face. It’s been fun to watch the stupidity come to fruition.
Love the state, hate the stupidity. If it weren’t 2 hours to the ocean, 1 hour to skiing, no earthquakes or wild fires in the central valley, I wouldn’t stay here. Can’t wait for the quake to dump Northern and Southern CA problems away.
By the way, I forgot to thank all of the voters for prop 103 that is finally giving me a raise due to our area spreading the wealth with our premium increases.
17 did not mandate that every carrier provide a ‘loyalty’ discount. Obviously, such discounts are persistency discounts designed to reward those who demonstrate personal responsibility and keep continuous coverage. Prop 17 would have simply allowed carriers to give that discount (as they did for many years) to drivers new to them but who had coverage elsewhere.
To answer the question as to why Mercury would support such a bill? Any company is at a gross disadvantage for getting new customers because the prior carrier can apply a 20%+ discount to their existing customers. Mercury is very competitive but their growth has slowed because consumers get tied to their current carrier due to the non-portability of the persistency discounts.
Prop 103 requires everybody to get the same rate with or without prior ins. So the Joe Schmo who comes in to buy ins, has no prior, just buying because he needs to reg. his car gets the same rate as a person with continuous. Prop 17 was meant to go back to pre 103 and give continuous a better rate than no prior. They just used the words longevity discount with current co to do this.
Actually, Prop 103’s main intent was to do away with territorial rating and enforce a Good Driver Discount”.
The companies were able to come up with “Geographic Rating Zones” and it took the DOI this long to figure it out.
By protecting the “Joe Schmo”, they gave a 16 year old the same rate as a 50 yr old getting their drivers license the same day.
They also took a 70 mile an hour collision with a telephone pole with no BI and made it as minor as a speeding ticket. Add BI to that accident and instead of being a “Good Driver” with a 20% discount and just a small 10 or 15 % surcharge, the rate can double in some carriers if they lose their “loss free discount” too. That’s why it is called Prostitution 103.
Well yeah, 103 did all those things as well. 17 was meant to be able and offer those with continuous a better rate than those with no prior, just like pre 103 days.
Then Mercury simply needs to file better rates. How is it that 21st Century and GEICO regularly beat them? Simple – better rates. Again, why this needs to be legislated rather than filed with the DOI is beyond comprehension. It’s as if Mercury tried to do an end run around that process.
Again, people who have participated in this joke of a system we call insurance should not lose the benefit of a persistency credit after having been responsible in this irresponsible society. They should be able to keep whatever credit they have “earned” and not been given by legislation when they choose to leave for another carrier.
ACTUALLY, the real intent of Prop 103 was to make its author, Harvey Rosenfield, millions upon millions of dollars in intervenor fees. It has succeeded in fulfilling its intent.
Straight up, they are very competitive. Although I see them get beaten by AAA some, it usually if for less coverage or with understated mileage, hidden drivers, misassigned drivers & what not, all the usual dirty tricks. I can rate them against all the other majors in FSC and seldom doe they not have the best rate when all underwriting factors being equal.