Posted On: January 29, 2008, 10:51 am CST

Posted By: wudchuck

here's the problem i have w/the credit. let's put this in perspective as per the reported article:

"This legislation is a major step backward and could hurt the majority of consumers in Colorado," said Kelly Campbell, regional manager and counsel for PCI. "Every credible study demonstrates the strong connection between credit information and risk of loss. As a result, the use of insurance scores enable insurers to make more accurate predictions about which consumers are likely to experience claims. Insurers have been using credit information for many years and some companies report that up to two-thirds of their customers have lower premiums due to having a good credit-based insurance score. If companies were prohibited from using these scores, the lowest risk customers end up paying more to subsidize higher risk consumers."

Penn. classifies credit as a major factor in determining rates. other use it a minor and if you have great credit - possible give you preferred rates (if no activity).

the article lists that there is a correlation between good credit and risk loss. in reality - this is not a true assessment of risk loss.

1) if i am rich and have a minor fender bender, i would gladly fix the other person and my car out of pocket - so i don't file a claim. if not filed, i don't have to tell anyone and not get hit on it. in some states if below a threshold, it does not affect my rate. but does the accident truly show my risk? i had one, and if i keep paying out of my pocket, although the insurance is not paying, my risk is not good.

2) just because i have insurance, i would definately want my car to be fixed, because i am not a rich man (could be middleclass or lower). the idea of insurance is to imdemnify my loss. so why not have them fix the car and pay for it minus my deductible. i have now noticed finally, and have been waiting to see this. but a lawsuit against the insurance company and a dealership because when the vehicle was being traded - they did not get the value of the car like it had not been in an accident. lower value of the car was given.. um... did not the insurance company that got my car fixed at a repair shop (of my choosing) imdemify the value of the car? so why is it lower just because it had been in an accident. there are some folks that don't get their car fixed and sure, the value is still the same since they cashed the check instead of repair. so where's the solvency in getting it repaired and getting valued when i turn it in?! just because i filed a claim to fix my car means i have bad credit?! NO! is it more likely i will file a claim? NO! this is why the law of larger numbers does not work, we use the glass 1/2 full vs 1/2 empty. sounds like a political solution (haha, election year!).

personally someone's driving record is a risk and more concern than their credit. i would look at credit if it meant they might be fraudlently filing a claim but not the rate. accidents and tickets are valid, along with suspensions - many folks drive while on suspensions and truly need to stay off the road. especially since they don't have insurance to cover them.