I was delighted to read of the court’s rejection of Bowler’s attempt to replace a statute that establised Commonwealth Auto Reinsurers with an “order” that replaced CAR with a discriminatory auto assigned risk plan, which CAR was specifically intended to replace and eliminate. I am not now surprised with the arrogance exhibited by MA elected and appointed officials to appeal the court’s decision. This not a matter only of law and the commissioner’s authority – it also involves the rights of MA citizens, and the administration’s attempt to by-pass the MA Legislature, which is where the issue should be resolved – and the people should write their legislators and insist the insurance industry’s attempts to eliminate CAR be soundly rejected. The “author” of CAR.
Only the titans of this market would ever agree to the system as it is now. The gamesmanship exhibited just to survive unequitable ERP assignments is proof of the need for reform.
It eludes me how anyone could possibly think that Mass’ mess of an auto market with its dwindling pool of carriers could possibly be seen as appealing to the 86% of people who support the other 14% who are the problem. Do you really believe the rights of the public are being violated by a commissioner with enough vision to see that the system is failing the public?
The commissioner is charged with fair practice in the industry, and by reforming an unequitable market is doing her job. The legislature will drag this out for a decade, and water it down and all for the sake of “authority”.
Meanwhile the people who have been “trampled” continue to bear a disproportionate burden and the big seven carriers continue to eat up the market they manipulate, and dictate industry management in the state by technicalities in the courts.
What happens when there are no companies left writing in Mass? I’m curious to know the process that takes place then, if there is one in place, just in case that happens.
The current system is indefensible, and the state AG already has determined that it fails to meet the stautory requirement of “equitable distribution”. Massachusetts will NEVER have a healthy market without scrapping C.A.R. and also creating a competitive rating system. Wake up Mass voters — there is a reason most of the biggest personal lines companies in the country (State Farm, Allstate, Progressive, Farmers) will not compete for your auto or homeowners policy — your state laws are soo different from the rest of the country that they rig the game in favor of a couple of local companies. The result is less competition, a shortage of coverage for coastal and urban homeowners, and higher prices all around.
My, what a hornet’s nest has been stirred up! To Jay – I do, never have, and never would want to work for an insurance company (though I do frequently represent them as an insurance expert in litigated matters). There is no state that has less than 14% “bad” drivers, so get real with what the true problem is – the company’s rapacious desire to maximize profits well over and beyond what is reasonable. To Mark – leaving the state is a threat made by companies in every state in which they want “reform”, which means let them do what they damn well please with rates and underwriting. Thre’s enough cars at high premiums to induce companies to stay in MA, believe me. Many states have only a handful of companies writing Personal Auto.
To “howdy” and Sam – if the system of fairness to everyone is so “indefensible” why have we seen so many articles and statements in recent weeks about the minimal rate increase requested by carriers, and responses that in fact there should be significant reductions in Private Passenger Auto premiums? Companies are and have been making a profit in MA. When they say “we’re losing money” it means they’rs not making as much profit as they’d like. Remember that they make investment income profits on your premiums as well, along with the underwriting profits. The industry puts on the “we will leave the state” pressure to get the “open competition” they desire which leads to larger profits on underwriting and investment income.
I was delighted to read of the court’s rejection of Bowler’s attempt to replace a statute that establised Commonwealth Auto Reinsurers with an “order” that replaced CAR with a discriminatory auto assigned risk plan, which CAR was specifically intended to replace and eliminate. I am not now surprised with the arrogance exhibited by MA elected and appointed officials to appeal the court’s decision. This not a matter only of law and the commissioner’s authority – it also involves the rights of MA citizens, and the administration’s attempt to by-pass the MA Legislature, which is where the issue should be resolved – and the people should write their legislators and insist the insurance industry’s attempts to eliminate CAR be soundly rejected. The “author” of CAR.
Spoken like a true Commerce/Arbella Employee.
Only the titans of this market would ever agree to the system as it is now. The gamesmanship exhibited just to survive unequitable ERP assignments is proof of the need for reform.
It eludes me how anyone could possibly think that Mass’ mess of an auto market with its dwindling pool of carriers could possibly be seen as appealing to the 86% of people who support the other 14% who are the problem. Do you really believe the rights of the public are being violated by a commissioner with enough vision to see that the system is failing the public?
The commissioner is charged with fair practice in the industry, and by reforming an unequitable market is doing her job. The legislature will drag this out for a decade, and water it down and all for the sake of “authority”.
Meanwhile the people who have been “trampled” continue to bear a disproportionate burden and the big seven carriers continue to eat up the market they manipulate, and dictate industry management in the state by technicalities in the courts.
What happens when there are no companies left writing in Mass? I’m curious to know the process that takes place then, if there is one in place, just in case that happens.
The current system is indefensible, and the state AG already has determined that it fails to meet the stautory requirement of “equitable distribution”. Massachusetts will NEVER have a healthy market without scrapping C.A.R. and also creating a competitive rating system. Wake up Mass voters — there is a reason most of the biggest personal lines companies in the country (State Farm, Allstate, Progressive, Farmers) will not compete for your auto or homeowners policy — your state laws are soo different from the rest of the country that they rig the game in favor of a couple of local companies. The result is less competition, a shortage of coverage for coastal and urban homeowners, and higher prices all around.
I agree the system is indefensible. I work for a carrier that is now seeking to withdraw from Mass, in part because of this ruling.
My, what a hornet’s nest has been stirred up! To Jay – I do, never have, and never would want to work for an insurance company (though I do frequently represent them as an insurance expert in litigated matters). There is no state that has less than 14% “bad” drivers, so get real with what the true problem is – the company’s rapacious desire to maximize profits well over and beyond what is reasonable. To Mark – leaving the state is a threat made by companies in every state in which they want “reform”, which means let them do what they damn well please with rates and underwriting. Thre’s enough cars at high premiums to induce companies to stay in MA, believe me. Many states have only a handful of companies writing Personal Auto.
To “howdy” and Sam – if the system of fairness to everyone is so “indefensible” why have we seen so many articles and statements in recent weeks about the minimal rate increase requested by carriers, and responses that in fact there should be significant reductions in Private Passenger Auto premiums? Companies are and have been making a profit in MA. When they say “we’re losing money” it means they’rs not making as much profit as they’d like. Remember that they make investment income profits on your premiums as well, along with the underwriting profits. The industry puts on the “we will leave the state” pressure to get the “open competition” they desire which leads to larger profits on underwriting and investment income.
It’s no threat.
They are, and continue to leave the state. Another filed notice it’s leaving just two weeks ago.
It’s not so much the profit margin that’s driving this move. It’s the inequitable distribution of high risk business.