So, miles driven will be one of the criteria for setting and establishing one\’s rates. What is going to be used to determine, and measure miles driven? Or, is everyone going to say 7500 miles annual? Once again, short-sighted democrats ruin the stew. This will wind up favoring the urban drivers. Wake up Californians!
Another typical Democrat who thinks he knows more about actuaries than the actuaries themselves. What next, when he became Lt Governor, is he going to tell the doctors how to practice medicine? The free market system returns the highest possible standard of living to the people of any country who practices this. Tampering with the free market, reduces sandard of living to all people including the poor. It seems like Democrats would rather have inefficient monopolies or ologopolies in the twisted name of fairness instead of doing what is best for the population as a whole.
He must live in a hole. There is absolutely no greater risk of financial loss for a person living in LA vs Fresno? Let\’s see, the cost of repair is higher, the medical cost is higher, and for all intents and purposes, the drivers are worse down there (and most of them are under or uninsured anyway). But that brings up his other stupid idea….Low Cost auto insurance, since we\’ve had 0% inflation since 1967 when the FR Law was first written.
Charging by mileage is the first step towards selling insurance as part of purchasing fuel. Those that travel more miles buy more fuel, thus pay more for insurance.
The only hope here is that miles driven is the least recognized factor in computing rate. Those of us in rural areas may drive longer distances but have less traffic to deal with and less chance of an accident.
I agree 100% on personal accident frequency being the primary determinate of rate, but for the most part it already is.
The concern however is for those that have had no losses. If miles driven is a bigger factor than where you drive, the rate will inordinately favor those urbah drivers that are surrounded by morons looking to run into them.
He is flipping off the actuaries. Remember, Garamendi is better than us because he is a politician, not to mention a typical democrat who has to purchase votes because nobody would vote for them on their agenda that is for sure.
It\’s obvious that Joh Garamendi isn\’t popular with insurers and he admitedly has higher political aspirations. Notwithstanding whatever faults Garamendi may have, the fact is the voters of California voted for Prop. 103 which included rules for rating private passenger auto.
Garamendi is really only seeking to implement those rules contained in Prop 103 and which were ignored by Commissioner Quackenbush, who was owned lock – stock and barrel by the insurance industry. You might recall he was also forced to resign for having been found guilty of self dealing with money obtained from insurers.
The fact of the matter is that urban drivers with clean driving records pay significanlty more than their suburban counterparts. My son\’s auto premium using his LA zip code was $1,700 more than if I used my Dana Point zip code.
Insurers argue that there are more accidents in urban areas and therefore rates shoud be more for anyone living in those areas. Traffic in urban areas is heavier mostly due to people who commute into the city. I you doubt that, just look at the morning and evening commuter LA traffic on I-5, I-10, I-405- the 60, the 91 and the 101. If you removed all the commuters from City Los Angeles streets, traffic would light and very manageable.
If it makes you feel good to bash Garamendi please do so but enforecement of Prop 103 rating rules is long overdo.
Unfortunately, depending on an individual insurer\’s actual volume of business in a given zipcode or county, the rate may be inadequately skewed (due to premium vs losses paid). However, the fact is that in LA and SF and others, the risk of financial loss is greater than that of us in the central San Joaquin valley. That\’s why we chose to live here. We don\’t believe LA or SF deserve our water. They choose to live there…let them build their own reservoirs. We don\’t have Earthquake exposures, why should we subsidize people who do? Same thing goes for auto insurance. Their cost of living is higher(which includes cost of repair, medical, and lost wage exposure). Let\’s not bring back the USSR like Garamendi would have it!
So, miles driven will be one of the criteria for setting and establishing one\’s rates. What is going to be used to determine, and measure miles driven? Or, is everyone going to say 7500 miles annual? Once again, short-sighted democrats ruin the stew. This will wind up favoring the urban drivers. Wake up Californians!
Another typical Democrat who thinks he knows more about actuaries than the actuaries themselves. What next, when he became Lt Governor, is he going to tell the doctors how to practice medicine? The free market system returns the highest possible standard of living to the people of any country who practices this. Tampering with the free market, reduces sandard of living to all people including the poor. It seems like Democrats would rather have inefficient monopolies or ologopolies in the twisted name of fairness instead of doing what is best for the population as a whole.
He must live in a hole. There is absolutely no greater risk of financial loss for a person living in LA vs Fresno? Let\’s see, the cost of repair is higher, the medical cost is higher, and for all intents and purposes, the drivers are worse down there (and most of them are under or uninsured anyway). But that brings up his other stupid idea….Low Cost auto insurance, since we\’ve had 0% inflation since 1967 when the FR Law was first written.
Charging by mileage is the first step towards selling insurance as part of purchasing fuel. Those that travel more miles buy more fuel, thus pay more for insurance.
The only hope here is that miles driven is the least recognized factor in computing rate. Those of us in rural areas may drive longer distances but have less traffic to deal with and less chance of an accident.
I agree 100% on personal accident frequency being the primary determinate of rate, but for the most part it already is.
The concern however is for those that have had no losses. If miles driven is a bigger factor than where you drive, the rate will inordinately favor those urbah drivers that are surrounded by morons looking to run into them.
He is flipping off the actuaries. Remember, Garamendi is better than us because he is a politician, not to mention a typical democrat who has to purchase votes because nobody would vote for them on their agenda that is for sure.
It\’s obvious that Joh Garamendi isn\’t popular with insurers and he admitedly has higher political aspirations. Notwithstanding whatever faults Garamendi may have, the fact is the voters of California voted for Prop. 103 which included rules for rating private passenger auto.
Garamendi is really only seeking to implement those rules contained in Prop 103 and which were ignored by Commissioner Quackenbush, who was owned lock – stock and barrel by the insurance industry. You might recall he was also forced to resign for having been found guilty of self dealing with money obtained from insurers.
The fact of the matter is that urban drivers with clean driving records pay significanlty more than their suburban counterparts. My son\’s auto premium using his LA zip code was $1,700 more than if I used my Dana Point zip code.
Insurers argue that there are more accidents in urban areas and therefore rates shoud be more for anyone living in those areas. Traffic in urban areas is heavier mostly due to people who commute into the city. I you doubt that, just look at the morning and evening commuter LA traffic on I-5, I-10, I-405- the 60, the 91 and the 101. If you removed all the commuters from City Los Angeles streets, traffic would light and very manageable.
If it makes you feel good to bash Garamendi please do so but enforecement of Prop 103 rating rules is long overdo.
Unfortunately, depending on an individual insurer\’s actual volume of business in a given zipcode or county, the rate may be inadequately skewed (due to premium vs losses paid). However, the fact is that in LA and SF and others, the risk of financial loss is greater than that of us in the central San Joaquin valley. That\’s why we chose to live here. We don\’t believe LA or SF deserve our water. They choose to live there…let them build their own reservoirs. We don\’t have Earthquake exposures, why should we subsidize people who do? Same thing goes for auto insurance. Their cost of living is higher(which includes cost of repair, medical, and lost wage exposure). Let\’s not bring back the USSR like Garamendi would have it!