Posted On: August 26, 2007, 10:05 am CDT

Posted By: wudchuck

here's the problem with the thinking:

1) credit does not reflect on driving. according to the studies, it apparently shows that someone has tendacy to file more claims. just because you file a claim does not mean your actually at fault. here's the issue, it says file a claim because of credit - um - there are few states that disagree with the use of credit. if i have an um coverage or comp clm, neither are at-fault, and yet i filed a clm to get it fixed. because of this you want to give me a higher rate?! not fair! and this is the reason why that is a falsity of using credit score. i work in the industry, but do not agree. a driving record is more accurate than someone's credit. i could live in a section 8 housing and have bad credit, but does that mean i have a bad risk? i could be an excellent driver and create no risk at all. credit score can not accurately prove that. it's like saying a glass is half empty or half full. so credit is not a 100% accurate proof of bad driving or for that matter showing that i filed a claim more often. if i did file a claim for a not-at-fault clm, why shud that be held against me. if a company thinks that folks are filing false claims, then they can relook at the credit score. your not going to convince me that credit has anything with your driving ability. In one state, they don't even use your occupation, but credit is a heavy score on determining risks. so what does that tell you?