Calif. Agency Approves Change in Auto Insurance Law

July 17, 2006

  • July 17, 2006 at 1:24 am
    Reality Check says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obviously there is no difference in wages, housing costs, cost of repair, medical care costs, let alone risks due to higher concentration of traffic on a daily basis in the commune that Garamendi, Rosenfield, and the citizens of the 5 out of 58 counties that passed prostitution 103 live in. The industry is nothing but a red-necked racist red-lining industry that makes up rates as it goes from their point of view. We don\’t want to help abybody. Absolutely amazing that people can be that clueless.

  • July 17, 2006 at 3:13 am
    Common Sense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I guess the FACT that certain areas have 50%+ uninsured motorists driving on the road AND the FACT that car theft is substantially higher in these areas should have no effect on the rates.

    Competition creates lower rates!

    Once again we have to subsidize for the irresponsible.

  • July 17, 2006 at 3:16 am
    common sense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I guess the FACT that certain areas have 50%+ uninsured motorists driving on the road AND the FACT that car theft is substantially higher in these areas should have no effect on the rates.

    Competition creates lower rates!

    Once again we have to subsidize for the irresponsible.

  • July 17, 2006 at 3:46 am
    Sure am glad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I sure am glad that Quackamendi will be able to say that everyone in the five counties that were the driving force (no pun intended) will see their rates stabilize and that the other 53 counties will see their rates go down significantly because of their clean driving records and loss history. Everyone should be able to afford it then. I am looking forward to paying less. Opps…what happens when one of those great drivers runs into me????

  • July 17, 2006 at 4:24 am
    Reality Check says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Actually, the pool will remain the same size. He\’s done nothing to reduce the cost of losses. If I were a greedy man, I would be happy to see him doing this. The county I live in will see rates go up 35% and one area almost 50%. This is going to be a great day for me. I feel sorry for the agents in the 5 counties where the rates are actually going down. Oh, but they are part of the commune where there is no cost of living effect.

  • July 17, 2006 at 4:28 am
    Election year says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This must be the election year. The current regulations have been in existence through three administrations and why all of sudden now? Removing persistency discount already have caused so many consumers to pay $200 to $300 extra when switching the carrier and I definitely do not want to pay more than those who reside in more densely populated ares with higher risk. Can someone please stop this fool?

  • July 17, 2006 at 5:51 am
    Trust who? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    THE FACTS are politicians are motivated by getting the most vote, and insurers are motivated by getting the most money. Both could care less about doing the RIGHT THING. The industry in its arrogance, dropped territorial rating (12 sq miles)and started charging a different rate for every zip code. The DOI is only right about one thing, that the insurers are using zip codes. The FACTS are that Socal, and Norcal should not have the same rates. It would be political suicide to do the right thing and ask the majority of their voters to pay higher premiums. So which is worse the FOX or the COYOTE, as neither cares about doing whats RIGHT, and you can not trust either.

  • July 18, 2006 at 8:02 am
    Mr. Recall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Gouge-a-many continues to play Robin Hood. I feel for all on you in California and just hope you remember this next time you walk into the election booth with your higher insurance bill. By the way I still have not read anything about how annual mileage is going to be tracked. Are black-boxes coming next? And what is the wonder-boy doing to reduce uninsured drivers?

  • July 18, 2006 at 8:31 am
    Reality Check says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    \”God\”amendi has worked up a great \”low-cost\” insurance plan that provides $10,000 per person/$20,000 per accident and $3000 for Property Damage. There is no UM , Med or Phys Dmg with the plan but it costs as little as $200 in some of the areas he has made it available. Of course our State minimum since 1967 was 15/30/5, but his commune never saw inflation. We can write a good driver in our area the 15/30/5 for $180 with a standard carrier. Although any agent that writes limits that inadequate should lose his license.

    As for the annual mileage, he is of course trying to push it off on the evil industry for election reasons. He simply should have the DMV take the lead with the smog data they have. You can\’t trust 25% of the insureds and the agents are not compensated (also thanks to prostitution 103) enough to stand out in the parking lot all day verifying renewal odometer readings.

    I hope that all of those who voted him, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein drink the punch \”ala Jim Jones\” before this next election.

  • July 18, 2006 at 4:43 am
    bob laublaw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Reality check appeared almost credible but lost it when the race card was thrown in. Do us all a favor and leave the race card at home where it belongs.

  • July 18, 2006 at 4:50 am
    Reality Check says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Had Garmanedi not used that as his basis for the red-lining accusation I would not have had to point out just how stupid racism is. I am sick of having my clients filling out Race Gender Forms for every application for insurance due to his ignorance.



Add a Comment

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

*