This is clearly a protectionist law. If they aren’t allowed to raise rates as people age, they also shouldn’t be allowed to charge more to younger insureds.
Why not Edwin if the younger insureds are having the speeding tickets and accidents due to distracted driving? That is what insurance has been about for many, many years. Younger drivers tend to sew their wild oats on driving and that is why young males pay more.
valvestern, companies are practicing age discrimination with their rating practices. Millenial geek modelers recommend rate increases for older drivers and sell it to the board. After all, they might have a claim at some point. By the way, the younger drivers also may have a claim, only much sooner with their distracted driving from texting and talking on the cell.
Insurance rates should be about loss experience for all categories. This is unfortunately not true with some insurance products. Statistics say around age 50 has typically been the best experience with auto insurance. Experience and rates start rising after that. Auto insurance today uses many more data factors besides age to determine rate. Do not worry as insurance carriers have many methods to avoid writing insurance on risks they lose money on. If you really want to discuss unjust rating nothing is more lopsided than Health Insurance. I can only hope when I reach those golden years there is social security and cheap health insurance.
Hey True, you know what, for many years, companies solicited and wanted the mature drivers since they were steady, didn’t have many claims, paid their bills, had good credit, drove sedans not noted for speed. Hartford/AARP made it a point to write them. It has all changed now and age discrimination is the order of the day.
Progressive wouldn’t raise rates on segments unless they were losing money on them, and it’s bad governance to tell a company they cannot be profitable. Also, I think they made it pretty clear that they were not targeting age alone. It’s a gross dereliction of duty to suggest that Progressive could “pull out of the market” to solve their problem would do far more harm over time to those problematic segments than allowing a carrier to raise rates.
Bottom line here is that if the rate is actuarially sound the company should be able to choose how they price and market the product. Last time I checked insurance was to be priced in accordance with risk. Do I know for a fact that Progressive could substantiate the change, no but having a rule/law that a company can not price their product based upon age alone just does not make good public policy in my opinion.
I can not wait until I can get some senior welfare.
Mrbob, I promise they are practicing age discrimination and charging good senior drivers a higher price because of it. The higher prices should go to the irresponsible drivers who are talking, texting or playing Pokémon Go on their cells while driving.
I am only an agent who observes what is going on in the market. Many of my older insureds are being unjustly charged higher premiums with no other reason that they had a birthday and jumped into a higher rate category.
Why not raise the rates on the Millenials who text while they drive, play Pokémon Go etc? They are the ones to concentrate on.
This is clearly a protectionist law. If they aren’t allowed to raise rates as people age, they also shouldn’t be allowed to charge more to younger insureds.
It’s an experience thing not an age thing at that point. Can’t say it the other way around though.
Why not Edwin if the younger insureds are having the speeding tickets and accidents due to distracted driving? That is what insurance has been about for many, many years. Younger drivers tend to sew their wild oats on driving and that is why young males pay more.
Raise the rates on the ones who text and yak on their cell phones while driving, not me who just happens to be 65 or older.
valvestern, companies are practicing age discrimination with their rating practices. Millenial geek modelers recommend rate increases for older drivers and sell it to the board. After all, they might have a claim at some point. By the way, the younger drivers also may have a claim, only much sooner with their distracted driving from texting and talking on the cell.
Insurance rates should be about loss experience for all categories. This is unfortunately not true with some insurance products. Statistics say around age 50 has typically been the best experience with auto insurance. Experience and rates start rising after that. Auto insurance today uses many more data factors besides age to determine rate. Do not worry as insurance carriers have many methods to avoid writing insurance on risks they lose money on. If you really want to discuss unjust rating nothing is more lopsided than Health Insurance. I can only hope when I reach those golden years there is social security and cheap health insurance.
Hey True, you know what, for many years, companies solicited and wanted the mature drivers since they were steady, didn’t have many claims, paid their bills, had good credit, drove sedans not noted for speed. Hartford/AARP made it a point to write them. It has all changed now and age discrimination is the order of the day.
Hopefully, you don’t have an Obamacare policy Truerate. It just about to totally collapse. Where will the coverage be then?
Progressive wouldn’t raise rates on segments unless they were losing money on them, and it’s bad governance to tell a company they cannot be profitable. Also, I think they made it pretty clear that they were not targeting age alone. It’s a gross dereliction of duty to suggest that Progressive could “pull out of the market” to solve their problem would do far more harm over time to those problematic segments than allowing a carrier to raise rates.
Bottom line here is that if the rate is actuarially sound the company should be able to choose how they price and market the product. Last time I checked insurance was to be priced in accordance with risk. Do I know for a fact that Progressive could substantiate the change, no but having a rule/law that a company can not price their product based upon age alone just does not make good public policy in my opinion.
I can not wait until I can get some senior welfare.
Mrbob, I promise they are practicing age discrimination and charging good senior drivers a higher price because of it. The higher prices should go to the irresponsible drivers who are talking, texting or playing Pokémon Go on their cells while driving.
Careful agent you are starting to sound like a politician.
I am only an agent who observes what is going on in the market. Many of my older insureds are being unjustly charged higher premiums with no other reason that they had a birthday and jumped into a higher rate category.