CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Your response to industry hot topics.

Moderators: Josh, independent guy

Will Prop.17 pass?

Poll ended at Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:37 pm

Yes
1
100%
No
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 1

sankykid
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:23 am

CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by sankykid »

Mercury is pushing hard for the passage of Prop.17 which allows California auto insurers to offer persistency discounts to new business as long as they've maintained coverage with their previous carrier. Will it pass?
JAM
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by JAM »

Well its did not pass and the reason was they want to penalize people if they had a gap in coverage. The persistency thing was a cover.The had been trying for years DOI but the DOI had told them to pound sand. Thats why they spent millions on the ballot and now the people of CA have told them the same thing.
Western commercial hub.
www.premieroc.com
SmartGuy
Insurance Journal Fan
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:29 am

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by SmartGuy »

Dear Jam, from the looks of your spelling I am not confident you are not the problem. People that maintain continous insurance deserve a better rate than those "riding the gap". What industry are you in that you don't "get it"? Furthermore what planet are you on? Laymen’s terms for ya buddy... if a college football player maintains a steady & successful season and surpasses other players this track record deserves Heisman consideration(Reconition for disapline). Therefore in real life if you play by the rules you deserve a discount. 1 more example bringing it down further: If you pass your spelling test you deserve to go on to 2nd grade. Therefore you will eventually go on to the next grade and have a successful job and spell properly when injecting comments or opinions on things you have no clue about.

Also if you had a clue these folks are also responsible for the uninsured motorist accidents. If you are to argue your opinion do the educated a favor and use spell check so we can understand you!!
JAM
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by JAM »

Smart Guy, thanks for the spelling lesson. I often type way to fast. As far as this issue is concerned and to the best of my knowledge Mercury was the only Co. backing this legislation. That is proof enough for me to have voted against it. As the campaign for Proposition 17 kicked off, Mercury Insurance was smacked by a hard-hitting report from California's Department of Insurance which says that Mercury has a "lengthy history of serious misconduct" and an attitude of "contempt toward and/or abuse of its customers, the [insurance] commissioner, its competition and the Superior Court."

Proposition 17 was a rate hike in disguise because it "...allows insurance companies to surcharge people who have not been previously insured -- even if they are perfect drivers who weren't insured because, for a time, they weren't driving. Proposition 17 also penalizes anyone who had to drop coverage for more than 90 days during the last five years, or missed just one insurance payment."
Western commercial hub.
www.premieroc.com
Sundog
Insurance Journal Fan
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:50 pm

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by Sundog »

SmartGuy, I find it perplexing that you were so contemptuous of JAM's spelling when your own posting was not error-free. "Continous?" "Reconition for disapline?" And in the United States, punctuation is inside the quotation marks, as in JAM's latest post, not outside. Let's eschew the hostility and be respectful of each other. I compliment JAM on his restrained response.
simiinsuranceguy
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:44 am

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by simiinsuranceguy »

To Smart Guy. You may want to change your handle. Just my 2 cents.
KPIA
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:51 am

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by KPIA »

JAM,

With all due respect, the argument that persistency should not be portable because 'if someone has a lapse in coverage they would not get it' does not hold water. Persistency discounts DO exist, rightfully so, in the form of "loyalty" discounts. People with a lapse in prior coverage already don't get that discount. Prop 17 was not going to change that fact. What P17 WAS going to do was allow people to continue to receive that discount if they switched companies, period. So the environmentally aware consumer who gave up his vehicle for a couple of years before having to get another one (one of Uncle Harvey's favorite liberal fairy tales... because how many agents can testify that we see that happen EVERY DAY... err.. I mean NEVER) does not get a persistency discount now, nor would he have if P17 passed.

What the failure of P17 did was to harm the consumer who cannot find a better rate because his company has a 20% (or more) advantage over all other companies due to that discount. So, rather than saving 20% with another company, the new company is slightly more, a cost he cannot afford in these times while he waits to get back to the 20% discount level in five years with the new company. Instead, he has to cut coverages to get that 20% savings. So, he drops comp & collision & UM, saves a few bucks but has no car now that he got creamed by an unlicensed and uninsured driver (if you haven't heard, we got a ton of those in California).

The main and almost sole opposition to P17 was from Uncle Harv who does not want to see anyone chip away at Prop 103, the ludicrous, worthless law that he penned that is his own personal cash cow lining not only his pocket but that of his organization. The millions upon millions of CONSUMERS' MONEY that he has pocketed from Prop 103 never gets mentioned in these fights because it is too complex and expensive to get into in a 30-second political ad during the political stupid season.

While there are lots of good sound bites on the anti-17 side, none of them can survive scrutiny under the harsh light of reality and truth. Lucky for Harv all he had to say was "insurance company BAD" and the gullible California electorate bought into it... again.
Kevin M. Kennedy
KPIA - Kennedy Professional Insurance Agency
www.kpia.com
JAM
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by JAM »

Persistency discounts are generally small discounts. (3-6%). On the other hand if you did not have Insurance you could get hit with a 20% surcharge. I did not have insurance when I was in college and rode my bike. What if you did not own a car for a while?
The real question is why was Mercury the only Company that backed it? Was it their love for the consumer?
Western commercial hub.
www.premieroc.com
kcharette
Insurance Journal Enthusiast
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:11 pm

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by kcharette »

I agree with JAM. I would assume that there would be a rate filing to make prop 17 revenue neutral. I would expect that the new discount being given to the drivers switching insurers would get passed on to the new drivers with no prior coverage.
Ken Charette, ACAS
KPIA
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:51 am

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by KPIA »

Why was Mercury the almost sole backer? As with every question, follow the money. They are so competitive that they regularly eat the direct writers' & captives' lunches when given the opportunity to compete with them square up for their best clients. They did for years until they were forced to stop giving portable persistency. Mercury's growth has stagnated and they want to get growing again, pure and simple.

As for those few exceptions where people go without insurance because they don't have a vehicle, that number is dwarfed by the vast numbers who simply aren't responsible enough to consistently carry coverage. And that number is dwarfed even further by the number of responsible people who are harmed by the fact that they cannot carry that discount with them.

So, as is all too common in California and our nation, the irresponsibles are subsidized by the responsibles in yet another fashion.
Kevin M. Kennedy
KPIA - Kennedy Professional Insurance Agency
www.kpia.com
JAM
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by JAM »

KPIA wrote:Why was Mercury the almost sole backer? As with every question, follow the money. They are so competitive that they regularly eat the direct writers' & captives' lunches when given the opportunity to compete with them square up for their best clients. They did for years until they were forced to stop giving portable persistency. Mercury's growth has stagnated and they want to get growing again, pure and simple.

As for those few exceptions where people go without insurance because they don't have a vehicle, that number is dwarfed by the vast numbers who simply aren't responsible enough to consistently carry coverage. And that number is dwarfed even further by the number of responsible people who are harmed by the fact that they cannot carry that discount with them.

So, as is all too common in California and our nation, the irresponsibles are subsidized by the responsibles in yet another fashion.
Below are some good reasons Mercury is losing Money despite their low rates:
http://www.stopprop17.org/blog/10reasons/
1. State regulators describe Mercury Insurance as an abusive, anti-consumer company.

The California Department of Insurance recently made this statement before an Administrative Law Judge in an agency enforcement action against Mercury:

Mercury’s lengthy history of serious misconduct, and its attitude – contempt towards and/or abuse of its customers, the Commissioner, its competition, and the Superior Court – are all relevant to determining the penalty needed to best ensure the protection of the public from future violations and wrongdoing…

Among Department [of Insurance] staff, consumer attorneys, and consumer victims of its bad faith, Mercury has a deserved reputation for abusing its customers and intentionally violating the law with arrogance and indifference.

The statement came in a brief submitted by the Department of Insurance in February 2009 in response to a motion by Mercury to exclude evidence of the company’s past conduct.

See key pages from that brief here. (See, particularly, page 4.)
Read the “Notice of Noncompliance” in the administrative proceeding filed by the Department of Insurance here.
2. Mercury illegally surcharged hundreds of thousands of drivers until it was ordered to stop in 2005.

For years, Mercury Insurance illegally overcharged hundreds of thousands of California drivers hundreds of dollars per year, until they were forced to stop in the wake of a Court of Appeal decision in 2005. Despite California’s unambiguous prohibition against using someone’s history of prior insurance coverage to determine premiums, Mercury Insurance penalized drivers who had a lapse in their auto insurance for any reason, bringing in millions of dollars through an illegal surcharge.

Mercury was sued by its customers for this illegal charge (Donabedian v. Mercury), but continued to impose the surcharge even as it was lobbying Sacramento to delete the prohibition from California’s insurance reform law, Proposition 103. Only in 2005, after the California Court of Appeal confirmed earlier rulings that the surcharge and a law allowing the surcharge were illegal, did Mercury finally stop penalizing good drivers just because they had a lapse in auto insurance coverage.

The Mercury Insurance initiative headed to the 2010 California ballot would legalize the premium increases Mercury had finally been forced to stop charging.

3. An internal training manual produced in a civil trial shows Mercury Insurance trained employees to mistreat, neglect and even threaten customers who file claims.

A Mercury instructional guide for employees told claims processors how to delay and lowball claims, and to “remind” customers that if they tried to hold Mercury accountable in court for such mistreatment, they could end up losing. Some of the training provided to Mercury claims staff in the manual included:

“Never use your top dollar to begin negotiations”
“Use time as your ally”
“Remind claimants that a judge or jury would find them at comparative fault”
A portion of the instructional guide was disclosed as part of a 2006 lawsuit against the company by a Los Angeles business that sued Mercury for failing to properly pay a claim. During the lawsuit, a Mercury employee asserted that the company no longer uses the training manual. As the Daily Journal in 2008:

Mark Volper and Boris Smorodinski claimed their Sherman Oaks business suffered a slow “death by asphyxiation” while Mercury repeatedly denied their claims and ignored pleading letters for help.

The unanimous decision came last week after jurors were shown internal training guides instructing Mercury adjustors to low-ball customers, drag out their claims and remind them they could be found at fault in a trial. Amerigraphics Inc. v. Mercury Casualty Company BC331524 (L.A. Super. Ct., Feb. 21, 2008).

Read the Daily Journal article about the lawsuit here.

4. Mercury had to be forced by a California court to stop its insurance agents from charging illegal broker fees to unsuspecting customers.

In 2003, the San Francisco Superior Court found that Mercury was deceiving customers through its advertising by suggesting that consumers would pay less for auto insurance from Mercury than from other insurance companies. What its ad campaign failed to disclose was that Mercury customers (unlike the comparison companies) would often be required to pay an additional broker fee that is illegal under California law, driving up the actual price. The court issued an injunction ordering Mercury to change its practices.

Read the judge’s conclusions about how Mercury deceived customers here.
Read the judge’s refusal to lift the injunction against Mercury over this practice here.
5. In 2008, Mercury paid the California Department of Insurance a quarter-million dollar settlement for alleged claims handling violations.

People often buy insurance by looking at price. But if a company has a history of failing to handle consumers’ claims properly after an accident or a loss — the moment they need their insurance most — then a low premium isn’t such a great deal. The California Department of Insurance investigated Mercury’s claims handling practices, a matter Mercury settled by paying $250,000 (plus the Department’s enforcement and legal costs) and agreeing to pay more penalties if they didn’t improve their practices in six months. The Department of Insurance explained the problem with Mercury in a June 2008 news release:

The California Department of Insurance (CDI) conducted a review of consumer complaints filed with the Department against Mercury Insurance, Mercury Casualty, and California Automobile Insurance Companies, collectively known as Mercury Insurance Group. Of the 121 files reviewed, a total of 258 violations were discovered to have occurred from January 2004 through December 2005. These violations involved several of the company’s claims-handling practices, including unreasonable delays in affirming or denying coverage and issuing claim payments.

Read the Department of Insurance news release here.

6. Mercury Insurance was ordered by Florida regulators to pay $2 million to consumers and $1 million to the state for improperly denying legitimate claims and repeatedly flouting the law.

Mercury is not only in the crosshairs of California regulators. In 2006, Mercury was investigated and punished by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation “after receiving a steady increase in complaints from Florida Mercury policyholders.” As the state regulator’s news release explains:

The examination found a multitude of violations relating to the companies’ business practices including the unwarranted termination of policies upon the filing of a claim, failing to pay the full amount on covered claims, failing to deliver policies within 60 days, failing to provide specific reasons for denial of claims, and the use of unappointed agents. However, it was the use of unfiled forms and rates to improperly deny claims that the Office considered to be the most egregious violation.

Read the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation release here.
Read the insurance publication Best Week story “Florida Orders Mercury General Units to Pay More than $2 Million to Policyholders” here.
7. According to a smoking gun document, Mercury pays its repair shops incentives to use aftermarket parts.

Consumer Watchdog has obtained an internal Mercury document that exposes the company’s secret practice of paying its recommended auto repair shops incentives — up to $750 — to use aftermarket and reconditioned parts and penalizes its repair shops for using original manufacturer parts. According to the document, Mercury pays body shops 20% more than the shop paid for non-manufacturer parts, while it pays 5% less than the body shop’s own cost for original manufacturer’s parts. Incentivizing repair shops to use inferior parts when repairing policyholders’ cars endangers policyholders even if it may save Mercury money and increase profits. It is believed that the internal document was issued recently and reflects the current arrangement between Mercury and its body shops.

Read the document here.

8. Mercury Insurance has a long history of trying to thwart consumer protections and the will of the voters in the state legislature and on the ballot.

Ever since California voters enacted the landmark insurance reform initiative Proposition 103 in 1988, Mercury Insurance has led a series of efforts to undermine or repeal its consumer protections. Mercury’s commitment to undermining California’s consumer protections was summed up in June 2009 by Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik, who wrote:

No one’s been more determined to rewrite Proposition 103 than Mercury and its founder and chairman, George Joseph. The 87-year-old Joseph is known for detesting Proposition 103, and for not being reluctant to spend millions of dollars to rewrite it.

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-h ... 869.column]

Over the years Mercury has sponsored at least eight bills in the California Legislature to repeal or override key consumer protections approved by the voters. These include attempts to gut the 20% Good Driver Discount requirement, to re-impose discriminatory ZIP Code-based auto insurance pricing, to add new surcharges on customers, and to prevent courts and the Insurance Commissioner from ordering refunds when insurers violate the law.

Read more about Mercury’s efforts in Sacramento to dismantle Prop 103 here.

Mercury has also tried to go to the ballot in order to strip Californians of consumer protections. The 2010 initiative is not Mercury’s first attempt.

In 2006, Mercury proposed an initiative to gut other parts of California’s landmark insurance reform measure, Proposition 103. It would have allowed, among other things, insurers to rate drivers primarily on their ZIP Code rather than driving safety record. After sparking a public outcry, the proposal was withdrawn. Read the Los Angeles Times article describing Mercury’s 2006 attempt to attack Proposition 103 here.

9. Mercury Insurance is a leader among California auto insurers in one respect: political contributions.

Over the past ten years, Mercury has given more money directly to California state politicians and to California political parties than any of the four other largest auto insurers (State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, and Auto Club of SoCal), according to data available from the California Secretary of State. In fact, just considering donations directly from these insurers, Mercury has given more to individuals and parties between 1999 and 2008 ($2,746,600) than all four companies combined ($2,266,750), even though State Farm, Farmers and Allstate are substantially larger insurance corporations.

Download a spreadsheet summarizing the donations by California’s largest auto insurers here and a pivot table for a detailed comparison at here.

A key reason that Mercury has been such a prolific political donor in California is that it has hoped to wield influence over state politicians as part of its ongoing efforts to undermine the state’s insurance consumer protection laws, such as Proposition 103 (see #6 above).

In 2000, around the time that it was facing a potential enforcement action by the California Department of Insurance, Mercury made a major donation to then-Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush. As Insurance Journal reported the story:

California Insurance Chuck Quackenbush received a $50,000 campaign contribution from the head of Mercury Insurance Group less than two weeks after regulators froze a proposed enforcement action against the company. Both George Joseph, Mercury CEO, and Deputy Commissioner Dan Edwards agreed that the contribution was not linked to the proposed enforcement action.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in January, California Department of Insurance (CDI) officials in January threatened Mercury and five related insurance units with fines. Authorities alleged that some of Mercury’s independent brokers improperly charged customers fees, mostly for the purchase of auto-liability and property-damage coverage. According to Joseph, the fines were put on the back burner during a meeting between Mercury and department officials.

[http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/we ... /11992.htm]

Chuck Quackenbush resigned in disgrace later that year in the wake of this and other improprieties that were revealed in the news media. A decade later, Mercury is finally facing a Department hearing on the broker fee practices that were going to be the subject of the canceled 2000 proceeding. (See #1 above.)

10. Mercury Insurance and its Chairman have been mentioned during two FBI investigations into California political corruption.

In 1991, when the FBI was investigating corruption in the California Capitol that later led to the imprisonment of State Senator Alan Robbins and insurance lobbyist Clay Jackson, wiretaps of conversations between the two often referred to Mercury’s founder and Chairman George Joseph. In one frank exchange, Mercury’s chief was suggested as a possible donor, because he needed some legislative help from the Senator in his campaign to undermine provisions of Proposition 103, the voter approved reform initiative:

Senator Alan Robbins (AR): Okay. ‘Cause it would be…very, very…helpful if, uh, the check were here when I, uh, got back Tuesday night. Were here Wednesday morning.

Lobbyist Clay Jackson (CJ): Maybe. But, uh, I’ve been doing a lot of talking to George Joseph lately. He just applied for membership in the AIA [American Insurance Association, an industry lobbying group]. Which is just to get me.

AR: A wise move on his part.

CJ: Yes. And, uh, but aside from that, George is ready to do something, maybe George is the angel to ride to the rescue here.

AR: Maybe. What is George, uh, looking for?

CJ: Help. And when you’re flat on your back, you’ll grasp for anything you got. And right now, uh, you know, what he has done in the last six months, what he’s tried to do up here, remember years and years ago we always had uh, a couple little George Joseph bills that tinkered here and tinkered there.

AR: Yeah

CJ: He’s back to that.

AR: Okay.

[From transcript of September 5, 1991 8:28 am meeting between Alan Robbins & Clayton Jackson]

That wouldn’t be the last time Mercury and George Joseph’s name came up in federal investigations. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2004, Mercury’s sponsorship of a bill to gut the same provision of Proposition 103 that is being attacked by its 2010 initiative was raised in the context of an FBI inquiry into Senator Don Perata:

George Joseph, the chief executive of Mercury, acknowledged in an interview Tuesday that a Sacramento investment fund in which he is a partner has received a federal subpoena related to the Perata inquiry. But he said Mercury itself has not received a subpoena.

At Mercury’s request, Perata carried legislation in 2003 that allowed insurers to impose surcharges on drivers who previously lacked insurance or had allowed their coverage to lapse. Though the measure was signed into law, it was thrown out by a judge because it conflicted with the state Constitution.

[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... A0PPK1.DTL]

It is noteworthy that Mercury donated at least $175,000 to then-Governor Davis’s anti-recall campaign a few weeks after he signed the 2003 bill on Mercury’s behalf. Consumer Watchdog’s news release on the donation to Davis can be viewed here.
Western commercial hub.
www.premieroc.com
justthere
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:23 am

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by justthere »

It is a fallacy to believe that Mercury was the only company backing this Proposition. I was told by a few top company people that other carriers were backing the Proposition but could not come out publicly for it because it would look like another industry attempt to change the rules. Carriers were in favor of it because it would have been the first chink in the armour of Prop 103. Another reason they stayed quiet was because Mercury is not that popular in the industry and why not let them take all of the heat. It was a win-win to keep quiet. If it won, the Insurance industry would win. If it lost, then Mercury would take all of the heat. It was a smart move by the industry.
mhutch69
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:26 pm

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by mhutch69 »

Jam and other first year insurance "agents",
If you believe Prop 17 failing was a good thing, this clearly shows your lack of experience in this business. Transfer, prior insurance, (and since the lawyer written Prop 103) "persistency" discounts have historically been proven to be justified based upon millions of earned premium and the associated loss results. In fact, this rating factor applies to most auto policies in every other State. Years of driving experience (age), driving record and the garbage about being a Prop 103 "Good Driver" actually have less of an effect than consistent coverage to most insurers with any earned premium in PPA in CA.
But, you would not know that due to likely being a lawyer cruising this insurance site. If you have passed an insurance licensing test, you would not need to be corrected.
Mercury is one of the top 3-5 auto insurers in CA. based upon premium for a reason. Mercury has been one of the most successful insurers in CA. since the '60's, but I doubt you would know that. It is clear you were not selected by Mercury for appointment and hold a grudge.

What will be even more laughable is when YOU decide to switch auto insurers and find rates higher due to only receiving such a discount from the one company you have been with. "you rode your bike to college" also clearly shows your lack of experience to be making an entry within this forum.
I suggest you sell a couple policies before making such naive comments on the Internet. Maybe, when you finish college, you can pay your way without the grants/loans you have probably been living on for many years.
Heck, you probably voted for the inexperienced amateur in OUR White House.

That explains most everything. Come on, admit you voted for a guy who had 2 actual jobs prior to this one. Talk about being entirely mis-lead...

Do not comment on my spelling as it only demonstrates your ignorance. If I cared about the spelling, it would be perfect. This is not English 101.
JAM
Insurance Journal Addict
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:27 pm
Contact:

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by JAM »

Years of driving experience (age), driving record and the garbage about being a Prop 103
Well I guess I'm not as experiences as you. But I do know that All of the above factors do count in Insurance rating.
Mercury is one of the top 3-5 auto insurers in CA. based upon premium for a reason.

The might have good rates (although other carriers do beat them regularly) but the service and claims leave something less to be desired.
It is clear you were not selected by Mercury for appointment and hold a grudge
We have no interest.When I worked at the large firm a few years ago not only did we have Mercury we were one of the few places that had access to their taxi cab program. We quoted the deal but stirred the client to go with other carriers to to their poor claims service.
you rode your bike to college"
At least I went and Graduated.
That explains most everything. Come on, admit you voted for a guy who had 2 actual jobs prior to this one. Talk about being entirely mis-lead...

Do not comment on my spelling as it only demonstrates your ignorance. If I cared about the spelling, it would be perfect. This is not English 101.
You clearly have ADD or at least a mild case of aspergers syndrome.
Western commercial hub.
www.premieroc.com
kcharette
Insurance Journal Enthusiast
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:11 pm

Re: CA Prop.17 - Portable Persistency

Post by kcharette »

mhutch69 wrote: Years of driving experience (age), driving record and the garbage about being a Prop 103 "Good Driver" actually have less of an effect than consistent coverage to most insurers with any earned premium in PPA in CA.
Believe it or not, credit score is one of the most predictive variables. After that, age, gender, and territory. Driving record is a pretty poor predictor, but does add value. I wouldn't call it garbage, especially in a state where you have such little flexibility in rating. The less of the other variables you can use, the more value that driving record adds.
Ken Charette, ACAS
Post Reply