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?
tephen and Anon both ahe good points. Especially when it comes to where the vehicle is garaged. Here in New York, it is not only large cities, we have rating territories through out the state (our small county has two rating territories) and the rates are based on loss experience within each territory (although I still don’t understand why we are more than some metropolitan areas – is it politics?)
And I disagree on gender and marital status being excluded from rating consideration. Both of those factors DO have a valid value in rating – again, based on loss experience.
Got to agree with the over 65 factor since I am over 65, but I think the loss experience shows the over 65 crowd does have a higher loss incidence.
listen everyone, do not forget this is Massachusetts-home of Ted Kennedy for 45 years. This ultra liberal, San Francisco of the east, does not know what free enterprise is and would not recognize it if it snuck up and bit them in the rear. I am simply amazed that there was enough support to overturn no-fault in the first place. Maybe the rest of the 49 states should give them a chance. After all, the first steps to free enterprise are difficult and mistakes will be made.
I welcome this opportunity. I work at an Ins Co and when I first heard about this, was wondering if the Legislators would allow them to get away with this type of blatant discrimination and redlining. I said to myself, here we go again, another way of “socking it” to the lower and middle class. What does a College degree, credit score, marital status etc have to do with driving record? Rates sh be based strictly on driving record, plain and simple ….and in a few cases where one lives can be considered since some areas are really high crime,theft etc.
Please do not allow them to get away with this. Thank you very much!!
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?
pLS. EXPLAIN HOW YOU CANNOT USE CREDIT FOR RATING BUT CAN USE FOR UNDERWRITING?
tephen and Anon both ahe good points. Especially when it comes to where the vehicle is garaged. Here in New York, it is not only large cities, we have rating territories through out the state (our small county has two rating territories) and the rates are based on loss experience within each territory (although I still don’t understand why we are more than some metropolitan areas – is it politics?)
And I disagree on gender and marital status being excluded from rating consideration. Both of those factors DO have a valid value in rating – again, based on loss experience.
Got to agree with the over 65 factor since I am over 65, but I think the loss experience shows the over 65 crowd does have a higher loss incidence.
listen everyone, do not forget this is Massachusetts-home of Ted Kennedy for 45 years. This ultra liberal, San Francisco of the east, does not know what free enterprise is and would not recognize it if it snuck up and bit them in the rear. I am simply amazed that there was enough support to overturn no-fault in the first place. Maybe the rest of the 49 states should give them a chance. After all, the first steps to free enterprise are difficult and mistakes will be made.
Overturn no-fault?
“…the first steps to free enterprise are difficult and mistakes will be made.”
CA: Can I quote you the next time I try to defend some of the problems and complications with the Iraq war?
spoken like a true kennedyian massachusetts liberal.
OMG! I’ve gotta add that to my quote diary too. Don’t think I’ve ever been accused of any of those things before, thanks for making my day.
Usually I’ve got people screeching at me like hens in heat that I worship at the altar of Reagan (it’s actually more of a tabernacle).
I welcome this opportunity. I work at an Ins Co and when I first heard about this, was wondering if the Legislators would allow them to get away with this type of blatant discrimination and redlining. I said to myself, here we go again, another way of “socking it” to the lower and middle class. What does a College degree, credit score, marital status etc have to do with driving record? Rates sh be based strictly on driving record, plain and simple ….and in a few cases where one lives can be considered since some areas are really high crime,theft etc.
Please do not allow them to get away with this. Thank you very much!!