I think what Mercury is trying to do is offer people with prior ins coming new to them a better rate than somebody with no prior which they cannot do under 103. People with continuous coverage are a better risk than those with no prior and deserve a better rate.
Just like 1988, the voters of California shot themselves in the head. Personal responsibility has meant nothing in this state. It is no longer a virtue.
Voters didn’t pass 17, a law that will give a true benefit to those individuals who have chosen to be compliant with the law but would like to save money after years of paying into a loser of a system called auto insurance by switching carriers.
In 1988 they voted yes to Prostitution 103 so that those who limit their risk by not living in high cost of living areas are forced to subsidize those who are stupid enough to live in those areas.
Those of us who work in the evil empire of insurance must do a better job of expalining what the hell it is that consumers are wasting their money on or the socialist mentality will continue to run rampant.
A loyalty discount is designed to encourage a company’s good customer to stay with us. Why should the company, in a free-market system, be required to just give away the rate?
Give the companies some latitude to develop their own rate plans and reward systems. Let the customers vote with their premium dollars. THAT is the best way to encourage a competitive market!
The best way to encourage a competitive market is for no-fault insurance to replace the tort system.
Since the Financial Responsility law has not changed since 1967 from the 15/30/5 to reflect current costs and awards, we are subsidizing underinsured motorists. Uninsured motorists still exist even with the DMV verification.
The companies that take care of their own customers can reward them any way they want.
Since the law would not have “mandated” a carrier to provide a renewal discount to a new customer (unless one existed in their rate filing), the free market would eventually weed out the competition.
I have been in this joke of an industry for over 23 years.
The problem is that you missed the first important point. Insurance should not be used to benefit those who are irresponsible. Prop 17 would have required carriers to provide their “renewal discount” to new customers who provided proof of that discount from their previous carrier. Responsibility(although unnecessary) would then be rewarded.
Which lead to the second point: TRUE NO-Fault would work just like life insurance. You choose to buy and something happens, you or your heirs collect. Those who choose not to buy suffer for their own personal irresponsibility.
I have done my research and witnessed the stupidty allowed to corrupt the original intent of insurance. When irresponsible people are benefiting from the work of responsible people with no consequences, only responsible people lose.
Carrying over your renewal credit to a new company completely defeats the purpose of the discount. Not to mention the simple fact that, if insurers are forced to give yet another credit to customers that isn’t ‘deserved’, we’ll end up seeing the difference in our base rates eventually.
Please don’t show your ignorance by making broad statements about CA residents and declaring everything you don’t agree with as socialism. That’s just plain sad.
I guess the issue is, why mandate that? I switched carriers mid-term and the new carrier gave me $50 on a debit card after staying with them 3 months. I had my reasons for moving – I had 2 moving violations coming off my record and my then incumbent couldn’t provide me with a renewal quote 60 days prior.
The point is, it should be up to the individual carrier on how to obtain new business, not ramming a continuous coverage discount down their throats. You have to also wonder why on earth Mercury would support this measure. I highly doubt they would want to give money away up front, without making it up somewhere else.
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 think what Mercury is trying to do is offer people with prior ins coming new to them a better rate than somebody with no prior which they cannot do under 103. People with continuous coverage are a better risk than those with no prior and deserve a better rate.
Just like 1988, the voters of California shot themselves in the head. Personal responsibility has meant nothing in this state. It is no longer a virtue.
Voters didn’t pass 17, a law that will give a true benefit to those individuals who have chosen to be compliant with the law but would like to save money after years of paying into a loser of a system called auto insurance by switching carriers.
In 1988 they voted yes to Prostitution 103 so that those who limit their risk by not living in high cost of living areas are forced to subsidize those who are stupid enough to live in those areas.
Those of us who work in the evil empire of insurance must do a better job of expalining what the hell it is that consumers are wasting their money on or the socialist mentality will continue to run rampant.
A loyalty discount is designed to encourage a company’s good customer to stay with us. Why should the company, in a free-market system, be required to just give away the rate?
Give the companies some latitude to develop their own rate plans and reward systems. Let the customers vote with their premium dollars. THAT is the best way to encourage a competitive market!
The best way to encourage a competitive market is for no-fault insurance to replace the tort system.
Since the Financial Responsility law has not changed since 1967 from the 15/30/5 to reflect current costs and awards, we are subsidizing underinsured motorists. Uninsured motorists still exist even with the DMV verification.
The companies that take care of their own customers can reward them any way they want.
Since the law would not have “mandated” a carrier to provide a renewal discount to a new customer (unless one existed in their rate filing), the free market would eventually weed out the competition.
How much do you know about auto insurance? You flip from one failed progressive idea to another without taking a breath!
I agree that California has stunningly low mandatory limits and that is legitimately part of the problem.
Ask Michigan or Colorado if No Fault insurance was the solution to their woes. It has not worked anywhere it has been tried. At least do the homework!
I have been in this joke of an industry for over 23 years.
The problem is that you missed the first important point. Insurance should not be used to benefit those who are irresponsible. Prop 17 would have required carriers to provide their “renewal discount” to new customers who provided proof of that discount from their previous carrier. Responsibility(although unnecessary) would then be rewarded.
Which lead to the second point: TRUE NO-Fault would work just like life insurance. You choose to buy and something happens, you or your heirs collect. Those who choose not to buy suffer for their own personal irresponsibility.
I have done my research and witnessed the stupidty allowed to corrupt the original intent of insurance. When irresponsible people are benefiting from the work of responsible people with no consequences, only responsible people lose.
You sure haven’t had a reality check in 23 years have you? Good hands has a MUCH better grasp of reality.
Carrying over your renewal credit to a new company completely defeats the purpose of the discount. Not to mention the simple fact that, if insurers are forced to give yet another credit to customers that isn’t ‘deserved’, we’ll end up seeing the difference in our base rates eventually.
Please don’t show your ignorance by making broad statements about CA residents and declaring everything you don’t agree with as socialism. That’s just plain sad.
I guess the issue is, why mandate that? I switched carriers mid-term and the new carrier gave me $50 on a debit card after staying with them 3 months. I had my reasons for moving – I had 2 moving violations coming off my record and my then incumbent couldn’t provide me with a renewal quote 60 days prior.
The point is, it should be up to the individual carrier on how to obtain new business, not ramming a continuous coverage discount down their throats. You have to also wonder why on earth Mercury would support this measure. I highly doubt they would want to give money away up front, without making it up somewhere else.
Suppose everyone who has had continuous insurance anywhere got a discount? Who would be left? This is really an ‘insurance lapse surcharge’.