# Auto Insurance Question.. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 3, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586 "2009-06-03T15:23:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/1 "2009-06-03T15:23:46Z")
I’m still getting auto insurance quotes and this one stumps me: Why does having a not-at-fault accident cause your quoted rate to increase? Why do they even ask? Is it your fault for being an unlucky soul? In other words, if I am on my way to a fire to rescue trapped orphans, and am patiently waiting at a stop light, when a drunk rear ends me causing property damage, the insurance company feels that I am an increased risk to them?? ETA: Admittedly, it is only a $20/6 months increase/about $3 per month, but that seems like $3 for no reason at all… ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/2 "2009-06-03T15:33:06Z")
I’m not saying I agree with it, but here’s the explanation I’ve heard: Okay, it’s not your fault in the sense of directly causing the accident; no, no one is blaming you for causing the accident. But you might have done a better job of getting out of the way; maybe your defensive skills could be improved. Other drivers might have avoided the accident, and you’re not as good of a risk as they are. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/3 "2009-06-03T16:46:14Z")
Not all do. When I was a grad student some drunk hit my car, which was parked off the street, when I was 800 miles away. My rates went down after that - though it might be because I had hit some age where I was supposedly a safer driver. My daughter got hit by a car which got hit by a car on a freeway off ramp - her rate didn’t go up then either. She had left enough space so that she didn’t hit the car in front of her, which might have helped. But I can see **Keeve** ’s explanation. If you don’t drive defensively enough, and get into an accident, it may not be your fault but you are still a higher risk to the insurance company. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/4 "2009-06-03T16:50:03Z")
This is why in many States, such as CA, insurance companies are specifically prohibited from using a “not at fault” accident against you. It’s 99% bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/5 "2009-06-03T17:38:30Z")
Just speculating here, but the insurance company wants to base its rates on how likely you are to get in an accident, and they’ll use whatever data they can to help them make that judgment: your age, sex, GPA, marital status, place of residence, previous driving record, number of miles you drive in a year, the safety record of your type of car, etc. Your chances of getting in an accident can also be affected by things they can’t measure directly, like **where** you drive (busy streets? highways? country roads? quiet side streets?), **when** you drive (rush hour? the middle of the night?), and **how** you drive (one driver may drive much more safely and defensively than another even if they’re both obeying all laws). So they may take the fact that you were in an accident as indirect evidence that you’re in the “relatively more likely to be involved in an accident” categories. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/6 "2009-06-03T17:43:53Z")
My Dad likes to tell the story of a woman he worked with who was always having auto accidents - and they were never her fault. She would do things like “go” as soon as the light turned green, or “stop” as soon as it turned yellow, without looking behind her. So, she was never technically at fault, but she was a terrible driver. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/7 "2009-06-03T18:02:21Z")
As has been stated, not all companies look at non-negligent losses (not at fault as well as comprehensive losses like vandalism or hail). There are as many underwriting models as there are insurance companies, ultimately it’s the state government that signs off on the fairness of each one. If you’re not comfortable with companies that include non-negligent losses, don’t give them your money. I sure as hell wouldn’t simply because they don’t think the same way I do and that might matter at some point in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Bad\_Astronaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Bad\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bad_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/8 "2009-06-03T21:28:43Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Your chances of getting in an accident can also be affected by things they can’t measure directly, like **where** you drive (busy streets? highways? country roads? quiet side streets?), **when** you drive (rush hour? the middle of the night?), and **how** you drive (one driver may drive much more safely and defensively than another even if they’re both obeying all laws). So they may take the fact that you were in an accident as indirect evidence that you’re in the “relatively more likely to be involved in an accident” categories. Yup, no doubt the insurance companies have the statistics firmly on their side - I guarantee people involved in a not-at-fault accident are more likely to be involved in another one. ---
**Author:** ![MLS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MLS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MLS)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-insurance-question/498586/9 "2009-06-03T22:22:48Z")
Just anecdotal, but I went through a time when I had about one messy accident per year and they were always 100% somebody else’s fault. I got hit, for example, while stopped at a red light. Another time at a stop sign. Another time (the worst) when somebody pulled out despite having a stop sign. Fortunately, in NJ such accidents cannot be used to increase your rates.