California Prohibits Auto Insurers From Considering Gender When Setting Prices

January 8, 2019

  • January 8, 2019 at 1:31 pm
    Craig Cornell says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 5

    Insanity. Truly. Everyone knows that women, especially young women, are much safer risks than men.

    And so now we punish women with higher rates? For what? To feel we are making women the same as men? We are not. There are, always have been, and forever will be differences between men and women.

    Next up for the Social Justice warriors in California: banning driving records from consideration in setting insurance premiums, in the same way they have banned questions about the criminal background of job applicants. Age? Banned (ageism). DUI records? Banned. (not compassionate to the recovering). Type of Car and Year Built? Banned (discrimination against people who can’t afford nicer cars).

    • January 9, 2019 at 2:18 pm
      George Dias says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 3

      There are plenty of places to look this up so I will not post a link. California’s Proposition 103, passed in 1988, requires auto insurers to base their rates primarily on three factors: the driver’s safety record, the number of miles driven annually, and the driver’s years of experience. So there has been no age or gender discrimination anyway, and ex-Commissioner Jones’ regulation has no practical effect. I have reviewed company filings and have seen a lot of back and forth between the actuaries at companies and the insurance department. Studies show that Californians pay about the same rate for auto insurance as they did in 1990 while the rest of the nation has seen premiums soar by 43 %. So like a lot of ridiculous conservatives, you don’t know what you’re talking about. For what it’s worth I don’t like Dave Jones and also think he is now finished as a politician.

      • January 11, 2019 at 1:40 pm
        craig cornell says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 3

        Tell me, oh wise liberal, if there has been “no age or gender discrimination anyway”, as you say, then why was this change needed at all?

        Pray tell, oh man of wisdom. As a “ridiculous conservative”, I can’t wait for enlightenment.

    • January 14, 2019 at 3:23 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Now that there are more than two (2) genders I guess this solves the problem.

  • January 9, 2019 at 11:38 am
    Mrbob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    Craig,
    Although there was certainly a time when logically it would appear that young women were better/safer drivers, I wonder in the new digital age if that is still true. I would like to think that the rates are based on experience and as such the actuarial data would support the pricing. For the outgoing commissioner to try to win votes by edict rather than data, for his next position, is wrong.

  • January 9, 2019 at 5:30 pm
    Jim Backus says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    Once again, the state pretends they know better! When will the people realize, politicians cannot do much right. Look at the state debt.

  • January 10, 2019 at 11:23 am
    Observor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Dias: I would argue that Prop 103 actually increased rates and taxes due to increased regulation costs (a much larger staff at the Department of Insurance as well as intervener fees from “consumer groups”.) Rates were stabilized from some court rulings that limited liability payments. A better way to compare states would be to compare loss and loss adjustment expenses to premiums. The downside of Prop 103 is that people in rural areas subsidize drivers in urban areas while drivers with excellent credit subsidize people with poor credit. With this change young female drivers will subsidize young male drivers. I make the assumption that if Group A has a lower loss ratio than Group B or the population as a whole, then Group A is subsidizing the other because they are paying a higher rate than they would in a perfectly free market.

  • January 10, 2019 at 11:50 am
    Observor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Another perspective:

    http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/jaffee/papers/Auto2.pdf



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*