Not surprising that California led the league in “F” for regulation. North Carolina is also bad, but the good news is they got rid of their Democratic Senator.
Is it true that California taxes gasoline twice? Gas taxes are built into the pump price and then they tax it again?????? If so, they are even goofier than I thought.
Please note in the article where it says that this is not a criticism of state DOI’s. For example, as a Product Manager, I have dealt with the staff at the California DOI for 20+ years. They are generally good people doing the best they can with some crazy laws passed by their citizens. Yes, there are some bureaucrats in any DOI that cause problems (as well as some elected Commissioners), but the same can be said of many private-sector companies as well.
I was not surprised at all. Does that make me a Conservative?
I work with agents countrywide and have a good sense of how good regulators are in most states. I am also not surprised that NY received a D. They are a pain to work with.
I also found some irony in you praising TX regulators since they are the ones who approve of the use of insurance scoring, predictive modeling and rates for senior drivers that you have complained about in previous posts.
Ron, you will never be a Conservative since you mock everything Conservative. That is what Progressives do. It is not surprising to me that a heavily regulated and taxed state like NY gets such a low grade. How do you like supporting that bureaucracy with your State Income Tax? You should write to your Governor that they are a pain and should be cut down to size and or eliminated. I am sure he will lend a sympathetic ear to your plight.
As the warden in Cool Hand Luke famously said – “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. This country is currently divided by race, gender and class and it is very apparent by the comments on this forum. I wonder who is responsible for the divide.
The small problem R Street faces in giving North Carolina a grade of F is that North Carolina has very low auto insurance rates — sixth lowest in the nation, lowest in the Southeast, and lowest among the 10 biggest states — AND lots of competition, with more than 160 insurers vying for the business of North Carolina’s drivers.
In the real world, North Carolina is the envy of drivers in other states, which must make R Street’s ivory-tower ideologues go crazy.
R Street’s motto seems to be: That’s all well and good in practice, but how does it work in theory?
Are you saying that North Carolina does not regulate companies and make them file rates for competing in the market? How about claims practices, resolution of disputes with consumers? There has to be a reason for giving them an F.
I’m saying that given R Street’s purported criteria of insurer solvency, pricing flexibility, competitiveness and efficiency, North Carolina is doing quite well.
Our rates are very low, and insurers are free to reduce their prices at any time, no prior approval needed.
Our 166 highly competitive auto insurers are solvent and profitable.
North Carolina is a good market for consumers AND insurers.
Proposals to change our system would only push prices up, as there’s only one way for them to go.
It’s hard for free-market absolutists to accept that North Carolina’s system works well. But auto insurance is a mandatory product for drivers, so consumer protections are justified.
North Carolina drivers who think they’re paying too little for good car insurance are free to move to higher-cost states.
North Carolina richly deserves their F grade. The low cost of auto insurance there has a lot more to do with NC’s contributory negligence law and low litigation propensity than with anything the NC Insurance Department does. NC has the biggest resdidual market in the country for a reason, and the folks in the voluntary market pay more than they should to fund it.
Most states are at least honest enough to call a tax a tax. But not NC… they require that “recoupment charges” be included in the underlying coverage premium on the dec page rather than separated out as a separate charge, to hide the fact that good drivers are paying for excess losses in the facility.
I could go on and on about both NC and NY… lots of funny stories. I thought R Street did a pretty good job on the grading, though CT got a somewhat better grade than I would have given them.
“The authors state…that an “F” score does not mean that a state’s insurance commissioner is inadequate anymore than an “A+” is an endorsement of an insurance department.”
Yes NC got an “F”, but no – it doesn’t “look like they need a house cleaning in their Insurance Dept.” That’s exactly the mentality the author was telling people NOT to have when reading this report.
Here are a couple of factors working against NC. You worked your away around the edges of one of them above: “Our rates are very low, and insurers are free to reduce their prices at any time, no prior approval needed.” Yes, insurers are free to REDUCE rates. However, the NC DOI is incredibly difficult in allowing any sort of rate increase to be made. In fact, they entirely disallow many filed increases, rather than just approving a lower increase. Their bureau rating system is very cumbersome and contributes a lot to insurer expenses as companies try to bend themselves over backwards to adapt their ratings. Another huge factor in an F grade is the politicization of the DOI in NC. Having an elected official as commissioner is just begging the commissioner to think only of his/her re-election and not about what’s best for the state’s insurance market and economy. Just read this site to see how much NC’s commissioner is focused on selling his re-election, rather than allowing the market to work freely: http://www.waynegoodwin.org/FightingForNC.php. It’s no coincidence that 10 of the 11 states with elected officials all were in the lower half of states and scored lower than a B: CA (F), DE (C- to C+), GA (C- to C+), KS (B- to B+), LA (D), MS (D+), MT (D-), NC (F), ND (C- to C+), OK (C- to C+), WA (D+).
I’m sure all the above BS is designed to say that we need the Federal Gov to step in and regulate it all.
You know…like FEMA. For example- the new $250 “fee” which is really a TAX they put on secondary and rental homes cause those white privileged people can afford it. But that’s beside the point. Nothing like charging more money for the same policy, but providing less coverage. That’s right…less coverage. Because you don’t get replacement cost coverage on a secondary or rental home.
And then there’s FEMA’s “talking points”. Anyone else seen the BS explanation that PRP policy premiums will “decrease by 2% but the amount policy holders will pay will increase 14%”. Let that one sink in.
When one has a second home in a flood zone, it should be charged more. If the owner is nowhere near the dwelling at the time of a storm, who is going to be there to board up windows, move things to higher floors, and further mitigate damages? Also, an unoccupied dwelling usually has less attention to maintenance than an owner-occupied primary dwelling. These are all factors that justify increased pricing on second homes.
Not surprising that California led the league in “F” for regulation. North Carolina is also bad, but the good news is they got rid of their Democratic Senator.
It’s what “the people” and Harvey wanted. Wonder how “no one” voted for it these days….just ask them.
Is it true that California taxes gasoline twice? Gas taxes are built into the pump price and then they tax it again?????? If so, they are even goofier than I thought.
If IJ wants REAL benefits from this story, they’ll forward a copy to each state’s respective insurance department.
I left a state insurance department a year ago. Trust me, they read it. They don’t need to have it forwarded to them.
Please note in the article where it says that this is not a criticism of state DOI’s. For example, as a Product Manager, I have dealt with the staff at the California DOI for 20+ years. They are generally good people doing the best they can with some crazy laws passed by their citizens. Yes, there are some bureaucrats in any DOI that cause problems (as well as some elected Commissioners), but the same can be said of many private-sector companies as well.
CL, the citizens don’t pass the laws in California, but the goofy Progressive politicians do and the goofy Governor signs them.
For all of the Cr_p everyone on here gives Texas, I was surprised to see Texas getting a “B”.
Doug, if one is a Progressive, they would be surprised Texas gets a B, if one is a Conservative, they are not surprised at all.
Agent, you are so right!! Funny but true comment.
Agent,
I was not surprised at all. Does that make me a Conservative?
I work with agents countrywide and have a good sense of how good regulators are in most states. I am also not surprised that NY received a D. They are a pain to work with.
I also found some irony in you praising TX regulators since they are the ones who approve of the use of insurance scoring, predictive modeling and rates for senior drivers that you have complained about in previous posts.
Ron, you will never be a Conservative since you mock everything Conservative. That is what Progressives do. It is not surprising to me that a heavily regulated and taxed state like NY gets such a low grade. How do you like supporting that bureaucracy with your State Income Tax? You should write to your Governor that they are a pain and should be cut down to size and or eliminated. I am sure he will lend a sympathetic ear to your plight.
As the warden in Cool Hand Luke famously said – “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. This country is currently divided by race, gender and class and it is very apparent by the comments on this forum. I wonder who is responsible for the divide.
NY is dysfunctional. Are you surprised how bad they are?
Kudos to Texas for cleaning up their act. From a “D” in 2013 to a “B-” in 2014.
The small problem R Street faces in giving North Carolina a grade of F is that North Carolina has very low auto insurance rates — sixth lowest in the nation, lowest in the Southeast, and lowest among the 10 biggest states — AND lots of competition, with more than 160 insurers vying for the business of North Carolina’s drivers.
In the real world, North Carolina is the envy of drivers in other states, which must make R Street’s ivory-tower ideologues go crazy.
R Street’s motto seems to be: That’s all well and good in practice, but how does it work in theory?
Are you saying that North Carolina does not regulate companies and make them file rates for competing in the market? How about claims practices, resolution of disputes with consumers? There has to be a reason for giving them an F.
I’m saying that given R Street’s purported criteria of insurer solvency, pricing flexibility, competitiveness and efficiency, North Carolina is doing quite well.
Our rates are very low, and insurers are free to reduce their prices at any time, no prior approval needed.
Our 166 highly competitive auto insurers are solvent and profitable.
North Carolina is a good market for consumers AND insurers.
Proposals to change our system would only push prices up, as there’s only one way for them to go.
It’s hard for free-market absolutists to accept that North Carolina’s system works well. But auto insurance is a mandatory product for drivers, so consumer protections are justified.
North Carolina drivers who think they’re paying too little for good car insurance are free to move to higher-cost states.
.
North Carolina richly deserves their F grade. The low cost of auto insurance there has a lot more to do with NC’s contributory negligence law and low litigation propensity than with anything the NC Insurance Department does. NC has the biggest resdidual market in the country for a reason, and the folks in the voluntary market pay more than they should to fund it.
Most states are at least honest enough to call a tax a tax. But not NC… they require that “recoupment charges” be included in the underlying coverage premium on the dec page rather than separated out as a separate charge, to hide the fact that good drivers are paying for excess losses in the facility.
I could go on and on about both NC and NY… lots of funny stories. I thought R Street did a pretty good job on the grading, though CT got a somewhat better grade than I would have given them.
Good rebuttal Matchoo. Looks like they need a house cleaning in their Insurance Dept.
“The authors state…that an “F” score does not mean that a state’s insurance commissioner is inadequate anymore than an “A+” is an endorsement of an insurance department.”
Yes NC got an “F”, but no – it doesn’t “look like they need a house cleaning in their Insurance Dept.” That’s exactly the mentality the author was telling people NOT to have when reading this report.
Nice Progressive word parse dude. Why am I not surprised?
Following the R Street model, this argument makes more sense in theory than is borne out in reality.
Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. also have contrib — and their drivers pay a lot more for car insurance than NC drivers do.
KeepMyRatesLow:
Here are a couple of factors working against NC. You worked your away around the edges of one of them above: “Our rates are very low, and insurers are free to reduce their prices at any time, no prior approval needed.” Yes, insurers are free to REDUCE rates. However, the NC DOI is incredibly difficult in allowing any sort of rate increase to be made. In fact, they entirely disallow many filed increases, rather than just approving a lower increase. Their bureau rating system is very cumbersome and contributes a lot to insurer expenses as companies try to bend themselves over backwards to adapt their ratings. Another huge factor in an F grade is the politicization of the DOI in NC. Having an elected official as commissioner is just begging the commissioner to think only of his/her re-election and not about what’s best for the state’s insurance market and economy. Just read this site to see how much NC’s commissioner is focused on selling his re-election, rather than allowing the market to work freely: http://www.waynegoodwin.org/FightingForNC.php. It’s no coincidence that 10 of the 11 states with elected officials all were in the lower half of states and scored lower than a B: CA (F), DE (C- to C+), GA (C- to C+), KS (B- to B+), LA (D), MS (D+), MT (D-), NC (F), ND (C- to C+), OK (C- to C+), WA (D+).
I’m sure all the above BS is designed to say that we need the Federal Gov to step in and regulate it all.
You know…like FEMA. For example- the new $250 “fee” which is really a TAX they put on secondary and rental homes cause those white privileged people can afford it. But that’s beside the point. Nothing like charging more money for the same policy, but providing less coverage. That’s right…less coverage. Because you don’t get replacement cost coverage on a secondary or rental home.
And then there’s FEMA’s “talking points”. Anyone else seen the BS explanation that PRP policy premiums will “decrease by 2% but the amount policy holders will pay will increase 14%”. Let that one sink in.
When one has a second home in a flood zone, it should be charged more. If the owner is nowhere near the dwelling at the time of a storm, who is going to be there to board up windows, move things to higher floors, and further mitigate damages? Also, an unoccupied dwelling usually has less attention to maintenance than an owner-occupied primary dwelling. These are all factors that justify increased pricing on second homes.