Just checked today... $1100 6/mo... 22 with fair driving record... Not bad Geico!

 

To set the record straight, this depends on what state you are in. Insurance is regulated at the state level so each state decides what the insurance companies can and can't do. Most states have no law against insurance companies using credit scores in their rate setting or underwriting.

Many states now have legislation on the books or are working on legislation to restrict the use of credit scores. Most of the legislation being passed only states that insurance companies cannot use credit scoring as the only factor in determining whether or not to insure someone or to set the rates.

California has what is probably the most restrictive law out there as cash1 stated and as LA-Z is indicating above. But that's only California.

As to Progressive's web page, since they do business in all states, they have to include that disclaimer on their web page, wether or not they will actually use credit scoring in your state.

Hope this helps on the credit scoring issue.

 

Gotta love it! An agent who not only advises you to ignore the law, but probably thinks you shouldn't report the accident to your insurance company as required by the insurance policy.

This could result in a loss of coverage in the event the other party turns around and sues you. Then you're on the hook for your own attorney to defend you, plus however much a jury might award the other party!

Even if the insurance company can get information about older incidents on your driving record, most do not use information older than about 3 years in determining whether or not to insure you or in setting their rates. Those that would hold a 20 year old ticket against you would rapidly lose market share as companies with more reasonable underwriting standards snapped up the customers whose driving records have improved with time and experience behind the wheel.

 

There is one thing that bugs me to no end, I have heard in CA, many of the homes have no homeowners insurance on them, because of the cost of insuring them is outrageous. Which begs the question, how much longer is the rest of the country going to put up with homeowners insurance, and by proxy auto insurance.

In some cases, (probably a lot), peoples car insurance cost more, up to twice the homeowners insurance! I wondering at what point do the customers, push the legistrators to pass laws repealing the insurance requirements, since so many are already driving without insurance.

Jim

 

My insurance on a '98 ZX2 is $2400 a year with Progressive. I have a reckless driving ticket that just came off and an expired license lapse (out of state and too lazy) so they are cornholing me.

Come January 31st, I am switching to Erie (unless I get a better quote) for $880 a year. Still high, but nearly $150 a month less.

 

Yes, auto insurance is typically more expensive than homeowners insurance. This is due to the higher risk involved in owning and operating a motor vehicle. The chance of being involved in an accident and injuring another person is substantially higher when driving a car. Likewise, the potential damages for a serious injury are much greater.

Mandatory insurance laws were created to ensure that when someone is injured due to someone else's negligence, the injured party would have a source of recovery for their damages. Unfortunately, as more people avail themselves of this available pool of money, whether legitimately, through fraud, through reasonable settlements or through inflated settlements due to the high cost of litigation, the costs have to be passed on to the consumer and you end up with a continuous spiral.

Of course, if there were no mandatory insurance laws and you were seriously injured by an uninsured moron (as the term was used earlier), you would have nowhere to turn for your injuries. Sure you could carry UM coverage but those rates would skyrocket due to the even larger number of uninsured motorists out there.

What is the solution? If I could figure that one out, I'd be rich.

 

HZ,

What I have been noticing over the past decade is a large increase in the number of claims file by people injuried not against automotive insurance, but homeowners, because of the usually higher coverages.

Another area I have noticed, is the creativity of lawyers, to make new areas of recovery and restitution against complete uninvolved homeowners. The one that comes to mind, happened just a few months ago in Lakeland FL.

A guy ran a red light, and broadside another car, totalling both of them. The guy claims, 'He could not see the oncoming car, because the hedges on the corner blocked his view'. Despite the fact that the light was red, and he should have been slowing or stopping. He decided to run the red, and blamed it on some innocent homeowner, the really wild part was he won in court and collected 450K, from the homeowners insurance!

Quite frankly, with so many people driving without insurance, and states more and more less inclined to enforce the laws, I suspect that sooner than later, the mandatory insurance laws will be repealed. I don't know about Texas, but in Florida, we have a sunset clause in our state constitution, that requires all laws to be reviewed and revoted every ten years or sunset. Our mandatory insurance law, only just past this last time..

Jim

 

Yep, lawyers can be very creative in trying to find loopholes in the law and trying to establish new theories of liability. The most frightening part is that a jury was unable to establish the facts as to what the true cause of an accident such as you described was.

Sunset clauses serve a valuable purpose but can cause legislatures to become bogged down reviewing old laws. Of course it also provides an avenue to change laws that have become twisted completely out of shape by an out-of-control judiciary.