Insurers Warn N.J. Not to Restrict Use of Education, Job Status in Rating
East News • March 6, 2007
New Jersey drivers could see a return to high prices and fewer choices for their insurance if legislators limit the use occupation and education as rating factors, insurers warned lawmakers at a ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: To set the record straight...
Posted On: March 7, 2007, 3:44 pm CST
Posted By: ES
Comment:
First, to address the statement that it is an ASSUMPTION that minorities make up a large portion of the unemployed and uneducated; it is true. Just look at the census data, until you have done that you shouldn't make statements about who is making assumptions. Given that, education and occupation are simply proxies for race and income.
Second, to address the comment about the Maryland study...Did you know that when that study was conducted, they didn't so much as look at Geico's book of business. Now how valid can a study be if the book nor the census data was looked at?
And third, to those who state that using education and occupation is "actuarially sound"; well then why is it that when Geico was asked to show the actuarial data supporting the practice, they were unable to provide it.
Bottom line, your job and your degree (or lack thereof) have NO correlation to your driving record. Multi-state, multi-line insurance companies target high income individuals b/c they have more assets that need protecting. Simple as that.
After all that, I leave you with one last thought. To whomever believes that this practice is not discriminatory I ask you to 1)actually look at the US census data 2) research Geico's practices; you will find that Geico actually has 4 separate companies and your eligibilty for those companies is dependent on education and occupation alone. They are putting lower income individuals into their sub-standard company which, mind you, has the highest base rates which can be subject to rate increases without affecting their "preferred company."
Using education and occupation is UNETHICAL. That's why even though statistical evidence has proven that African-Americans are more prone to certain infections and shorter life spans, race is not allowed as an underwriting factor in life insurance.
Subject: To set the record straight...
Second, to address the comment about the Maryland study...Did you know that when that study was conducted, they didn't so much as look at Geico's book of business. Now how valid can a study be if the book nor the census data was looked at?
And third, to those who state that using education and occupation is "actuarially sound"; well then why is it that when Geico was asked to show the actuarial data supporting the practice, they were unable to provide it.
Bottom line, your job and your degree (or lack thereof) have NO correlation to your driving record. Multi-state, multi-line insurance companies target high income individuals b/c they have more assets that need protecting. Simple as that.
After all that, I leave you with one last thought. To whomever believes that this practice is not discriminatory I ask you to 1)actually look at the US census data 2) research Geico's practices; you will find that Geico actually has 4 separate companies and your eligibilty for those companies is dependent on education and occupation alone. They are putting lower income individuals into their sub-standard company which, mind you, has the highest base rates which can be subject to rate increases without affecting their "preferred company."
Using education and occupation is UNETHICAL. That's why even though statistical evidence has proven that African-Americans are more prone to certain infections and shorter life spans, race is not allowed as an underwriting factor in life insurance.