Posted On: August 29, 2007, 11:21 am CDT

Posted By: Anon

Okay... we can go back and forth about credit scoring (and have, and will) but did I read correctly?

They want to ignore where the vehicle is garaged? California did that too. Why do people have a hard time understanding that where the vehicle is primarily kept, operated, etc is a fair and honest indicator of it's potential exposure to loss?

If there's a higher propencity to loss (theft, accident, fraud, vandalism) in a particular area that happens to be a "minority area" we should be looking at what's going on in that area that causes that instead of accusing insurance companies of racial profiling.

Who can't understand that someone who lives in the country or outter suburbs has a higher chance of hitting a deer than someone who lives in a major metro area? Who can't see that someone living in a town of 5000 people is less likely to get into an auto-to-auto accident than someone in a 500,000 person city? If you can accept that then how is it a stretch to accept that someone living in a city where 1 in 100 cars is stolen should pay more?