Incentives are nice. But only went you aren’t retarded about it.
Allstate is giving 100 dollars per year incentives not to get in an accident. So, for every year you don’t get in an accident, you get 100 dollars off your deductible. Maybe if it was for not getting speeding tickets. Those would work. Encourage not to speed. But this, this is beyond stupid.
People really need incentives not to get in accidents and wrecks?
Don’t most insurance companies offer bonuses and reduced premiums for not using the insurance during the year? 
The idea is simple: if you weren’t in a wreck, then you didn’t cost All State any money. The typical costs for a single wreck are way more than $100, so the cost works out.
When you speed, if you get a ticket, you are not costing All State any money.
Moreover, speeding per se isn’t a wreck indicator: things like not maintaining safe distances, failure to yield, not signaling are factors for wrecks way more than simple speeding.
We have an insurance company here called Outsurance (You Always Get Something Out). If you go some predetermined amount of time without getting into an accident, you’ll get a fairly sizable percentage of the premiums you paid over said period back.
Most people aren’t going around getting into accidents on purpose, but rewarding people who already drive carefully and have clean records is a good gimmick for getting them to switch from their current company to yours.
I second This.
I am a very safe driver. I keep my distance, I pay attention to everything going on around me. I leave myself an “out” when ever possible. I follow the basic guidlines of the Smith System. I also tend to go faster then the posted limit, but never faster then safe conditions allow. I have not had a ticket in 6 Years, or an accident in 7 (I was 17 at that time).
The thought crossed my mind about switching to Allstate to take advantage of this safe driver discount.
And, I feel that just because an accident is “not your fault” doesn’t always mean that you could not have prevented it by paying more attention and driving defensively. Safe drivers get in fewer accidents. Period.
I average a ticket every 2.5 years or so.
The key is to not tailgate, to be careful about lane changes, to be very aware of yielding and such. I also am paranoid when it rains or snows: drivers in my area don’t grok the idea of diminished coefficient of friction very well (if at all).
OUTSURANCE??? WAAAAAAA!!! For that, young lady, you will say 600 Hail Mary’s and prostrate before the cross 7000 times!!!
::runs from thread to find exorcist::
Okay, okay…so they are “the enemy”, what can I say?
Heh. It could have been worse - I could have colored the post Outsurance green 
This makes a good advertisement, but it actually benefits very few people. It only applies to collision insurance and if your vehicle is more than 5-6 years old you probably don’t need collision. If you do have it on an older car, which many do, you’re very likely paying very high premiums for the potential benefit.
I’d guess it also encourages people to avoid reporting relatively minor damage, paying for it out of pocket instead. I’d bet that the insurance companies can tell you, but won’t, just how much this saves them and it’s a hell of a lot more than they give back by reducing the deductable.
This is standard practice in the UK and in Ireland. It’s called a “No-claims bonus” (NCB), and is currently saving me 50% off my annual premium. Typically it’s a 10% discount per year, to a maximum of five years. I have made no claim for the past eight years.
Yes, I might get in a wreck through no fault of my own, but strangely, the older I’ve become, the less wrecks I’ve been in. Who’d a thunk that the rest of the world would have become better at driving as I’ve got older - because clearly none of the five wrecks I got into when I was 17 were my fault…
I got rear-ended at a stoplight by someone who couldn’t stop on a rainy road. Does anyone have a suggestion for avoiding that accident?
Nope. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
Some policies have “protected NCB”, which allow 1 or two claims, or exclude no-fault claims.
But it seems sometimes that the actuarial profession deems innocent victims of theft/car wrecks etc. as “the kind of person this would happen to”. I base this on the experience of my friend whose Subaru Impreza was stolen through no fault of his own: the thieves broke into his house, stole his keys and the keys of his roommate’s pickup, moved the pickup to get the Subaru out of the driveway, and reparked the pickup. He lost his NCB.
Aren’t speeding and similar moving violations already penalized by insurance companies. Drivers already are rewarded for not getting caught. I view this as an additional award, and I hope the lizard takes notice!
SmackFu, Ms. D_Odds had the same, only it wasn’t raining. Sometimes, better defensive driving can avoid an accident that wouldn’t be your fault anyway, and sometimes the other driver just ‘wants’ to hit something, and being in a stopped vehicle is no haven. That’s what I think jjimm was trying to say.
Risk assessment takes many factors into consideration. Location, driver age, driver claims history, occupation, to name but a few. Some types of vehicles have a higher incidence of theft than others, thus have a higher theft loading factor. Some areas have higher density, and higher reports of accidents, thus higher accident loading factors. And so on.
The final premium is the culmination of many factors, and one cannot always isolate one factor as the driving force behind the premium.
Also, the NCB is what it says, a No Claim Bonus. It is not a No Fault Bonus. One needs to remember that it costs the insurer, in time and resources, even if it’s minor damage, to process a claim. You are being rewarded, through the NCB process, for not costing the insurer in resources and labour.
Fault/liability is determined through a recovery of damages process, and this process brings with it a legal concept (in SA Law, that is) called subrogation. The insurer, by contract, and as a result of paying the claim, steps into the shoes of the insured and holds liable, or attempts to hold liable, the other party, sometimes called the third party, for the damages as a result of the accident. Often there is no one party 100% at fault, and there will be apportionment.
Nonetheless, in cases where there is a full recovery, or as close as full recovery can ever be, the insured will be in a position to receive back his deductible/excess/first amount payable, and in some cases, his NCB can be reinstated.
However, the reinstatement of the NCB is not a foregone conclusion, and the decision varies from company to company. As I said before, it costs money to process a claim, even if there is a full recovery, and the NCB is merely an incentive not to claim.
NCB’s are an effective means of premium reduction when small claims are at issue such as superficial body panel damage. One should never, however, decide to protect one’s NCB when serious damage has taken place which could affect the safety of the vehicle. This is just plain unwise, and not worth the risk.
Also, do not make the mistake of accumulating damage in the hopes of getting it all repaired in one go, and only paying one excess. Most policies are issued on the basis of an excess per incident, and loss adjusters can easily pick up old damage.
Ultimately, one needs to weigh up a number of factors and then decide what is the best course of action.