Insurers Find Fault With Report Over How Auto Insurers Treat No-Fault Accidents

By | February 14, 2017

  • February 14, 2017 at 9:46 am
    Raye Knoll says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 2

    Hunter is well known for only telling, or reporting, half the story, it appears his streak is alive and well.

  • February 14, 2017 at 1:46 pm
    martin says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 13

    @Rayal.. It would also appear that the insurance companies are notorious for getting caught with heir hand in the cookie jar. It is my many years of experience in this industry that allows me to make such a statement. It is very important for carriers to be profitable but it is also important to surcharge a customer on their merits. Many carriers will surcharge an insured for making a claim on their homeowners policy with zero paid out. They will also use this information in their eligibility guidelines. Some policy holders do not know what is and what is not covered so they will call the carrier to make a claim. What the policy holder may not know is they will be charged with a claim and perhaps a surcharge even if it is not covered.If they decide to withdraw the claim before payment is made they still have it on their clue report.This is unacceptable.. Many carriers will surcharge you for a comp claim.. Hitting a deer for example. We can go on all day at how the insurance companies continue to be creative, but what it comes down to is we need an insurance commissioner that has experience in the field that would be aware of the creative underwriting tactics that these carriers use. Heading a staff of people that look at numbers and failing to see the real picture is hurting the consumer and filling the pockets of the insurance carriers. I also hear from the carriers how their expense ratios are high. Most of that derives from the fat in their organizations and the incompetent hiring practices.

    • February 15, 2017 at 8:29 am
      CL PM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 1

      Wow, it sounds like you know exactly how an insurance company should be run. Are you the CEO of an insurance company? If not, why not? It sounds like you could do such a better job.

  • February 14, 2017 at 2:23 pm
    Milner says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 4

    Many of the quotes in this article seem to assume that premiums are meant to pay for past losses while premiums are actually necessary to pay for future losses. No thought seems be given to the possibility that drivers who avoid not-at-fault accidents are better than drivers who can’t avoid these accidents. Analysis I have done shows drivers with not-at-fault losses have more future losses than drivers without and fewer than drivers with at-fault losses. If a company overcharges a group making giving that group an above average profit margin, it opens the door for competition to pick up that business.

    • February 14, 2017 at 2:53 pm
      martin says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      @Miner.. So if you were sitting at a red light and couldn’t move and a driver rear ends you, you should be surcharged for sitting there and minding your own business? You may be right in some degree but there needs to be deference in other situations as well.

      • February 15, 2017 at 8:36 am
        CL PM says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        Martin – in your example, a one-time occurrence of such should not be surcharged and data supports that. However, drivers with multiple NAFs do have higher future loss costs. Data clearly shows that as Milner states. Should those that are setting prices ignore that data? Or, should we endeavor as an industry to charge premiums based on projected loss costs? As a driver with no AFs or NAFs in the past 20+ years, I would prefer not to pay higher premiums than necessary.

  • February 14, 2017 at 2:43 pm
    Mr. Obvious says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 0

    Nothing like tainting the findings with questionable samples. The “study” would be more meaningful if the two test insureds were a little more homogeneous.It doesn’t take an actuarial degree to know that a person with no prior insurance is going to be treated differently than someone with a long history. The CFA continues to promote P&C insurance as a social device.

  • February 14, 2017 at 2:46 pm
    Josh says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    This is an absurd comparison. Why do they say that a “middle income” person would have no prior insurance? Of course, they want to shine it up to look better so they say this “average” consumer had no insurance coverage due to not having a vehicle. Please show me the study that shows that most middle income folks have no prior insurance. Of course there is none, so they’ve introduced an unnecessary variable that is laughable on its face. The average middle income consumer is unmarried? Please cite the study. The average middle income person does not own their own home? Citation needed.
    If insurers do not use “not at-fault” accidents as a rating factor, it’s to their detriment. Studies show that “not at-fault” accidents are almost as large of a predictor of future losses as are at-fault accidents.

  • February 14, 2017 at 4:10 pm
    TxLady says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    Apples and Oranges. You cannot compare no prior to prior and call it even. To be more meaningful, both drivers needed to have the same amount and level of prior. Even then, though, you will get other rating factors involved, not just the accident, Flawed study.

  • February 14, 2017 at 5:24 pm
    Daniel Colucci says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    There are also a large amount of Fraudulent PIP claims in no fault states that is not even covered in this article.

    • February 15, 2017 at 7:35 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      That’s because the article was about NAF’s. Not fraudulent PIP claims.

  • February 15, 2017 at 2:25 pm
    Mr. Solvent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    Claims based rating is a very sound practice. Most home claims aren’t the fault of the homeowner, but claims filers are likely to file more.

  • February 16, 2017 at 11:27 pm
    factchecker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey, Andrew S., why do you care more about obscenity on your site than about illegal personal threats? Thanks.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features