Where the hell do you live? The most I can get is 500 smooth. State minimum is 15/30/5, but I’m carrying 100/300/50, with UIM/UMPD. Annual premium is $1840, and it would jump to over $2000 if I wanted that 500 smooth.
This is for a plane-jane 2004 Jeep, the California Proposition Whatever good driver discount, discount for Lojack, living in a quiet area that has essentially no crime other than youthful mischief and bank-required $500 deductible on comp/coll.
Do you not think that your position, dealing with claims every single day, might color your opinion of the matter? Seeing someone screwed over by state minimum insurance is something you see all the time, but it’s something I may not be involved in even once over a 50+ year driving lifetime.
You want EVERYONE to spend hundreds of dollars every year on insurance coverage that the vast majority will not ever need. Not only do you think it’s a good idea, those who disagree are “selfish assholes”.
I think you’re being way too judgemental, and your intimate association with this issue makes you believe the problem is bigger than it actually is.
I live in Denver. It’s not Hell, but you can see it from here. Cost of living is…lower…than in SF.
I suggest you reduce your comp to 0 deductable. Really. In the case of collision, you aren’t likely to have to even pay your deductable if the accident isn;t you fault. But you’ll almost always have to pay the deductable on Comp claims, as the Insurance co won’t find anyone to collect from. And, the point also is, that Comp claism tend to be small but annoying- broken windows for example- and not having to pay anything is nice. Besides, it’s cheap.
You are likely payng more as Inigo Montoya’s company (and almost all others) are fighting the Zip Code provisions of Prop 109 tooth and nail. Even though they are likely to lose, they have spend millions fighting this.
For those of you outside CA, one of the provisions on Propr 109 is that the most significant thing affecting your rates be your driving record, not where you live. The Insurannce Co’s want it to be your Zip Code, as IMHO that’s a not quite so obviously racist way of “red-lining” (“Oh, we’re not charging you more because you are black, we are charging you more as you live in Zip Code 9xxxx”- which just happens to be 90% Black. :dubious: )
Now true, where you live does have a small effect on some things like car theft- and so it can be used legit to a small extent- but now in CA (and likely in other states) it’s one of the biggest factors effecting all your rates.
If Prop 109 goes into effect, Urban dwellers rates will decrease, while rural dwellers rates will increase.
Oh balls. Money’s money. And people call me paranoid…
It also has a “small effect” on how many accidents a person is likely to be involved in, as densely packed urban areas have many more acccidents per mile driven than less congested areas.
In other words, rural dwellers will be forced to subsidize urban dwellers. Why is this fair?
I forgot my insurance papers at home, but I read them last night and it does indicate $1,000,000 3rd party liability. I’m insured through AMA, and IIRC I pay about $1300 a year, but that’s also including comprehensive. (Last minute addition: minimum 3rd party liability here in Alberta is $200,000, though the default with AMA seems to be 1,000,000, as I didn’t have to request extra)
Others seem to think differently about it, but I feel like my liability is to protect others in case someone is in the way when I do blow that stop sign :smack:, miss checking that other onramp :smack: :smack:, etc.
The $40 extra I pay a year to cover my $2300 mountain bike, that is for my benefit.
That’s true, and to that amount of effect, it seems they are allowed to take it into consideration.
No, it’s urban dwellers who have been forced to subsidize rural dwellers for decades- how is that fair? The law just states that the driving record will be the critical thing, not the stated residence. That way; Bad drivers- rural or urban- pay higher rates as they should. I don’t understand why a bad rural driver should pay less insurance than a good urban driver! :dubious: The new law will have all drivers treated equally based upon their records- no group will be paying more just becuase they live in a certain Zip Code (except to the circumstance where the Insurance co can show that Zip code has a higher rate of car theft, etc)
The lady who hit me from behind nearly four years ago had been driving for more than forty years. This was her first accident.
“Mrs. Smith” had no points on her license-- hadn’t even had a* speeding ticket* in more than a quarter of a century. But she’s human. Accidents don’t always happen because someone was being reckless. They happen when you look away from the road for just an instant, or if the guy in front of you slams on his breaks to avoid hitting a dog, or there’s debris in the road, or a thousand other things that you can’t control. And in that one instant, everything in your life changes. I pray to whatever gods may be that you never cause an accident. But even as careful as you are, you may. You’re human. You will make mistakes.
She only had $25,000 in coverage. My medical bills have been over $30,000 so far, and my doctors say that barring a miracle, I’ll always suffer from my injuries (and the costs associated with treating them.)
The last four years of my life have been filled with headaches and worry on top of the problems I have from my injuries. I have piles of unpaid bills.
I had underinsured driver coverage, but I actually have to sue my insurance comapny to get any of it. My attorney tells me that it’s highly unlikely anything will be settled before next year, so that will be five years of my life which have been in turmoil because Mrs. Smith didn’t have enough coverage. I don’t blame her for the accident because there, but for the grace of God, go I, but I damn sure do blame her for carrying the bare-minimum policy which ensured I can’t even be compensated for my out-of-pocket expenses out of it.
The same thing could happen to you, and if you don’t think it could, you’re living in a dream world.
Not possible. As long as the bank owns some part of the car, I’m required to carry comp/coll with a deductible of no more than $500. Lowering the deductible to $100 raises my premium by $342 per year. That’s beneficial how?
But almost no wind-related accidents, treefalls or whiteouts, and no deer accidents. And that’s accepting the idea that there is nothing in between inner-city and farmland.
That’s kind of funny. Not getting a break on your insurance because of where you live is the same as subsidizing people who live elsewhere.
Lowering the deductable on *just * your Comp raises it that much? :dubious: They dont have to be the same amount you know. In my case, the diff was around $30/year.
No, they aren’t. They must give it less weight than driving record, even if it’s a better predictor of loss costs.
No, they haven’t. Urban drivers aren’t subsidizing rurals just because they pay a higher premium, because their loss costs are also higher. One group is only subsidizing another group if the ratio between its premiums and loss costs is different.
Because, in many cases, residence is a better predictor of loss costs than driving record. There is an element of luck in accidents, and being involved in one accident doesn’t always mean you’ll be involved in another.
Suppose the average annual loss costs are:
Clean record, urban area: $800
Accident(s) on record, urban area: $1000
Clean record, rural area: $400
Accident(s) on record, rural area: $550
By mandating that driving record be the primary consideration, you force a skewed rate structure in which rural drivers pay more per dollar of loss cost than urban.
These are not major causes of auto policy claims.
Of course it is–if you deserve a break based on expected loss costs.
I don’t understand this “gold plated Hummer” stuff. If you negligently damage my gold plated Hummer then why SHOUDN’T you have to pay for it? What does the fact that it’s a gold plated Hummer have to do with anything?
How does not having insurance prevent me from paying for something I broke?
I am going to assume that you are talking about the losses associated with personal injury or death (because if your are pissed about people only collecting 25K on their totalled Ferrari then I guess I would say Fuck Off). Lets say there are only 4 drivers in the world:
Jennifer is single and rich.
Tom is single and poor.
Brad had dependents and is rich.
Susan has dependents and is poor.
Now lets assume that the minimum liability insurance is enough to pay for property damage that might arise in an accident. Lets say that the cost of liability insurance is as much as the cost of life/disability insurance (which only pays out in the event of a car accident). Does it make more sense to tell everyone to get $1,000,000 liability insurance or to tell everyone to get the level of life/disability insurance that they need? Now of course you can’t buy life insurance that only pays off in the case of car accidents (heck I don’t know if you can even find life insurance that pays off in the case of accidental death) but a 50 year old non-smoker pays about $1 per $1000 per year of coverage; or $1000 per year for a million in term life insurance. Liability insurance has much smaller incremental increases in premiums for larger policies (e.g. about $900/year for 25/50 and $1100 for 250/500; anything higher than that requires extra paperwork, from progressive). I can see your point and you should feel free to try to get them to pass legislation saying that everyone needs $1,000,000 of liability insurance and I’ll sign the petition but is your arguemtn is that there is something immoral about not having $1,000,000 in liability insurance, I think you’re cracked.
But it’s *not * a better predictor of costs, or so the courts and Insurance Commissioner have ruled.
The costs aren’t that much different.
No, residence is not a better predictor. Cite that it is?
Those numbers are complete made up bullshit.
News: 2006 Press Release
Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi Announces State’s Largest Insurer Has Abandoned Fight Against Good Drive Auto Insurance Reforms and Will Seek Rate Reduction of $204 Million
Announcement follows court decision rejecting an industry-led effort to stop the new regulations; pending approval of State Farm’s plan, rates for 4.3 million drivers have been scheduled for reductions totaling $370 million annually
SACRAMENTO – Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi today announced that State Farm Insurance, California’s largest auto insurer, has ended its battle against his Good Driver Reforms, and is seeking an 8% average reduction for its policyholders while simultaneously implementing the new regulations.
Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi Praises Ruling on Good Driver Auto Insurance Reforms; Auto Insurers Must Now Base Rates Primarily on How Safely You Drive, and Not Where You Live
The Commissioner’s fight to end ZIP Code discrimination by auto insurers approaches conclusion
SACRAMENTO – Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi on Thursday praised a judge’s decision to reject the insurance industry’s challenge to his Good Driver Auto Insurance Reforms. “This is a great victory for California voters and good drivers wherever they live,” said the Commissioner. “It means that Californians will finally realize the benefits of Proposition 103, which they approved more than 17 years go.”
The Sacramento Superior Court judge’s decision to reject the industry’s request for an injunction against the reforms is the latest step in the Commissioner’s battle to implement the will of voters who approved Proposition 103 in 1988. That proposition demanded that insurers base rates primarily on how safely you drive, and not where you live. Most importantly, the reforms would end the industry’s practice of penalizing good drivers simply because they live in the “wrong” ZIP Code.
“I am extremely pleased with the court’s ruling today,” said Commissioner Garamendi. “Now the industry must follow the rules and the law, and they must do so immediately.”
Over the past several weeks, the state’s fourth and ninth largest auto insurers filed applications to lower rates significantly while simultaneously implementing the Good Driver Reforms. The Auto Club of Southern California will give its nearly 1 million policyholders an average decrease of 7%, while USAA will provide most of its 426,000 customers with an average decrease of 5%.
“The rest of the industry should follow the good example set by these companies,” said the Commissioner. “Good drivers should reap the rewards of being safe, and it’s high time that the industry satisfy its obligations under Proposition 103.”
Due to the actions of former Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, insurers have avoided the law’s provisions calling for rates to be based primarily on three mandatory factors - driving record, driving experience, and number of miles driven. Instead, the Quackenbush system has allowed them to place greater importance upon other factors, such as marital status, gender, and most frequently, ZIP code.
This system permitted insurers to charge widely varying rates to similarly situated drivers who live across the street from one another, based solely on their respective ZIP Codes.
Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi Calls Court’s Ruling on “Good Driver Reforms” A Victory for All California Drivers
The 3rd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday refused to overturn a Superior Court ruling that required insurers to comply with the Commissioner’s Good Driver Reform regulations.
SACRAMENTO – Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi on Wednesday hailed a District court’s decision to uphold an earlier ruling that rejected an insurer-sponsored effort to stop the Commissioner’s Good Driver Reform regulations. “Once again the courts have ruled that insurers must comply with the will of voters who decided in 1988 that how safely you drive is more important than where you live in the pricing of auto insurance,” said the Commissioner.
Insurers must now submit new rating plans that comply with the regulations this week. Two large insurers, the Automobile Club of Southern California, and USAA Insurance, submitted filings well before the deadline. Both gave policyholders meaningful reductions in rates, while simultaneously implementing the new regulations’ requirements.
news: Automobile Rating Factor Regulations
Automobile Rating Factor Regulations
May 24, 2006
*Thank you for your interest regarding my proposal to improve the way auto insurance is priced in California. Simply put, I want to make sure that how safely you drive is more important than where you live. I welcome your input on this matter, and as always your thoughts will be considered as the process goes forward. However, before you make your final determination on this issue, I would encourage you to read further to understand why I believe your opposition may be the result of misinformation.
First of all, my plan, contrary to what the insurance industry contends, does not distinguish between rural or urban drivers. There is absolutely no element of this proposal that calls for higher rates in rural areas to subsidize lower rates in urban areas. In fact, good drivers in rural areas will likely see their rates go down under my proposal.
The industry, in order to protect the status quo and its marketing plans, has launched a highly dubious $2.4 million advertising attack campaign against me and my proposal. In fact, industry leaders attempted to delay these regulations by threatening me with this attack campaign. I will let law enforcement deal with what I believe to be the industry’s blackmail attempt, but I won’t stand silent while its campaign frightens and misleads rural Californians.
What my plan does is reward those who drive safely, and end the insurance industry’s unfair treatment of drivers – both rural and urban – who live in the “wrong” zip code. Are you aware that your neighbor just across the road, with whom you share an identical driving record, may be paying much less for auto insurance just because his or her house happens to sit in another zip code? It happens all over this state in rural areas and urban, and it isn’t fair. Furthermore, because of zip code rating, the current system sometimes allows drivers with accidents and/or tickets to pay less than a driver with a clean record. It doesn’t make sense.
Of course, location can be an important factor in considering how much to charge for auto insurance. That’s why my regulations still allow zip codes to be used, to a very significant extent. In fact, after I heard from so many people earlier this year about this issue, I revised the proposal to strengthen the provisions that relate to risk of loss.
In 1988 California voters passed Proposition 103, which required insurers to consider driving record, driving experience, and miles driven before any other factor. My new rules will finally accomplish this mandate – and they will do so without making rural drivers subsidize urban drivers. Don’t believe the industry’s misleading campaign.
Sincerely,
JOHN GARAMENDI
Insurance Commissioner*
*SANTA MONICA, Calif., May 18 /U.S. Newswire/ – Five of the nation’s largest auto insurers began airing an expensive TV advertising campaign today in order to mislead Californians, mostly in rural parts of the state, about the effects of Insurance Commissioner John Garaamendi’s proposed Good Driver pricing reforms. Garamendi’s reforms, which are mandated by the 1988 voter initiative Proposition 103, require auto insurers to base drivers’ premiums primarily on driving record rather than other factors such as ZIP Code or marital status.
The industry sent an explicit message to Garamendi last month, saying it would unleash the campaign just as Garamendi was running for the office of Lieutenant Governor unless he retreated from the reforms. Garamendi refused, and reported the extortion attempt in letters sent last week to the United States Attorney and FBI. Now, carrying out the threat, the industry is spending an estimated $2.4 million to mislead Californians into believing that the Good Driver reforms would hurt them, when, in fact, the new rules will benefit good drivers and low-mileage drivers in every corner of the state, according to the non-profit, nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).
“The insurance industry will use any means necessary, from TV ads to extortion, to stop pricing reforms for good drivers, and this campaign should be seen for what it is: a big lie meant to mislead Californians about the impact of Garamendi’s reforms,” said consumer advocate Douglas Heller, Executive Director of FTCR. “Anyone who sees these ads or receives the mailer should ask themselves why they should trust the insurers’ attack ad when their goal is to protect themselves, not you.”
Over the past two years auto insurers have enjoyed record profits in California (reaping over $4 billion in profits from California auto insurance policies over the past two years) and are desperate to keep the status quo, which has allowed them to increase profits by charging good drivers throughout the state unfairly high premiums simply because of the ZIP Code in which they live. The new Garamendi rules will still allow insurers to consider geography in setting premiums, but will require factors related to a motorist’s driving record to be most important.
Insurance Company Statistics Lie
The premise of the insurance industry’s ad campaign is that Good Driver reforms will lead to higher rates for rural drivers. The campaign cites statistics that are misleading in order to create unfounded fear of price increases among - good drivers and low-mileage drivers. For example, the statistics that the attack ads cite reflect aggregate data that include likely and appropriate rate hikes on bad drivers, such as those with DUIs, and long-haul drivers, who should pay more than neighbors who put fewer miles on their car every year, consumer advocates said. Even State Farm, one of the primary funders of this ad campaign, admitted that “There is…no study from which the impact on California policyholders can be assessed,” in a formal filing with the California Department of Insurance earlier this year.
Proposition 103, the 1988 initiative that mandated these Good Driver reforms, overcame an $80 million industry campaign of similar lies, but this portion of the initiative has never been implemented because of insurance industry-driven delays.
“Don’t believe the insurance industry hype. These ads are not to be trusted and drivers should call their insurers to demand a stop to the spending of their premium dollars on this deceptive scare campaign,” said Heller.
Over the past three years, Commissioner Garamendi has heard testimony from drivers throughout the state, as well as economists, actuaries and other experts, who have illustrated how the current system, installed by disgraced former Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, hurts good drivers. Under the current rules that Garamendi proposes to change, forces drivers to pay as much as $500 more for basic auto insurance than a neighbor across the street in a different ZIP code.*
These are press releases from a government agency, thus I quote in full.
Dude.
I think you may have just killed my thread.
He’s got a doctorate, after all. This page is all bitching about insurance rates though, so perhaps it’s for the best.
Yeah. I guess it needed killing. My fire’s burned out anyways.
Anyone want a beer?
I’d love a beer. Thanks, Inigo.