SVreX wrote: In reply to Javelin: I think your assertion that "most" companies don't make their profits ethically is highly speculative, and probably unfounded. Also highly likely to be untrue, but I will gladly consider the facts if you have any.
Sorry, that's probably my cynicism from having family members leave the Thanksgiving table to go shopping. 
ddavidv wrote: However...when some of you know-it-alls spew forth your intellectual nuggets about how everyone in the insurance industry is a scam artist and a liar, you're lumping me in there. So forgive me if I won't support your comprehensive conspiracy theory on how insurance is out to get you.
Woah there nelly, the rhetoric can be dialed back a bit there. I didn't say auto insurance man, just the worker's comp / health insurance! Man you guys like to take things to extremes. Do you personally handle the claims side when it's medical involved in a claim? I'm guessing probably not, and that's the section of insurance companies I have a problem with (from 3 years of working with them).
I've only ever been an auto customer and have had (unfortunately) a number of claims (although only one was my fault). I've had hardly any issues there as my local agent (for whichever company) has been pretty good at going to bat. I do think the "preferred repair shop" stuff is total BS though (I had a preferred shop do the repairs on a truck that turned out so poorly it had to be totaled and was never corrected).
for what somebody mentioned with the guy being "due". Here in NJ the insurance industry is allowed to drop a certain percentage of their clients for NO REASON. Why, I have never been able to figure that out.. but it was how I went from Prudential to State Farm.. after 4 years of no tickets and no claims.. I suddenly got a letter saying I was not going to be renewed in 30 days..
Greg Voth wrote: I find that most people have not read or do not understand their policy.
....and there's where a lot of the problems lie. The consumer is clueless about this very expensive product they purchase. I've had multiple people this week alone be baffled by the concept that they have run out of rental car coverage. The policy allows 30 days or x number of dollars. Once you exhaust the "bank account" of that coverage, you're done. All the whining in the world can't make more. It's a contract. Had you not chosen a repair shop with a 3 week wait to start on your vehicle, we wouldn't be having that problem, but hey...don't pay attention to that warning I gave you back in week 1.
Many agents are very poor at doing anything more than selling. And now, with the popularity of companies like the Lizard that don't have agents but simply sell by phone or online, people are even less educated. Everyone shops on price, then when they have a claim discover they don't have coverage or they opted for horribly low limits. And any time I see a $1000 deductible on a new KIA, I know we're in trouble.
You'd also be surprised at how many insurance problems are created by the state governments. Minimum coverage of $5000 is the rule of the day here in PA, and all the mouth breathers opt for it. Then when they sideswipe that parked Range Rover and 3 other cars at 2am after a night out, there's only 5k to be split amongst them, meaning no one gets made whole. Thus driving up all our rates yet again. Don't even get me started on New Jersey...
This thread started out about car insurance. Health insurance is another animal entirely, and I won't defend that. That has a whole different set of issues and does need an overhaul.
Exactly. Health insurance is a whole different animal than auto. I don't know a ton about health, as I only do auto (and some general liability).
Glad to see my fellow insurance employees jump in here, as we need to make sure our consipracy is air tight.... 
As Sonic, ddavid, et al said, auto insurance isn't some great evil empire. Far from it. The claims business is actually slanted heavily in favor of the customer, not the insurance company. Literally every day, I deal with claims where we could rightfully deny something, but give the benefit of the doubt and/or look for ways to provide coverage.
By the way, when you're looking at your rates, you can't look at them in a vacuum. You can't say "Well, my rates went up for no reason". Your rates aren't determined on just your driving. Your rates are also tied to the group of insureds as a whole.
ddavidv wrote: This thread started out about car insurance.
Home insurance.
Klayfish wrote: By the way, when you're looking at your rates, you can't look at them in a vacuum. You can't say "Well, my rates went up for no reason". Your rates aren't determined on just your driving. Your rates are also tied to the group of insureds as a whole.
Then why can't I "get the benefit of doubt" for no claims in years? Your words, not mine. If you want to say it's available statistics, I'll give you my statistic that holds 100% true, all statistics are without a doubt are 100% false. And they will stay 100% false until you sample EVERYONE EVERYTIME you need a statistic.
Insurance as a mandated item that can be conspired with other companies so they refuse to insure you, or put the rates so high it is a usury rate is bullE36 M3. Same with the whole credit score = worthiness of insurability risk BS. Especially over trivial claims that a person really doesn't have control over, unless you live in the protective bubble. Go back to the attic fan, what is the solution? Not have one? If that is the case, we should be back living in homes you had to build out of rough sawed lumber lacking insulation, electricity, indoor plumbing, and any other perk and avoid insurance at all costs?
Ranger50 wrote: Then why can't I "get the benefit of doubt" for no claims in years? Your words, not mine. If you want to say it's available statistics, I'll give you my statistic that holds 100% true, all statistics are without a doubt are 100% false. And they will stay 100% false until you sample EVERYONE EVERYTIME you need a statistic.
I'm confused. What benefit of the doubt for no claims? And when I was saying benefit of the doubt, I'm talking about situations when someone has an accident and there is questionable items/coverage. That's totally and completely different than rating a group of policies for premium. Apples and oranges.
If you think statistics all lie all the time, than I guess that's your opinion. I don't share that opinion.
ddavidv wrote: ....and there's where a lot of the problems lie. The consumer is clueless about this very expensive product they purchase. I've had multiple people this week alone be baffled by the concept that they have run out of rental car coverage. The policy allows 30 days or x number of dollars. Once you exhaust the "bank account" of that coverage, you're done. All the whining in the world can't make more. It's a contract. Had you not chosen a repair shop with a 3 week wait to start on your vehicle, we wouldn't be having that problem, but hey...don't pay attention to that warning I gave you back in week 1.
That was one of the reasons I stopped owning New cars and insuring them for full coverage. Back when I had my Hyundai Tiburon, I had full coverage through SF. after putting it into a ditch to avoid broadsiding a clueless mommyvan.. It took them a week to process my claim after an insurance adjuster looked my car over. They declared it a total loss and told me that because the car was a loss.. they would only cover ONE week's worth of rental car coverage rather than the full month.
Then it took them a month to get me the money. I had just gotten my new job.. so I was very broke at the time and three weeks worth of rental car coverage came out of my pocket until I could get another car.
Never had a new car since and will never carry full coverage again
mad_machine wrote: Here in NJ the insurance industry is allowed to drop a certain percentage of their clients for NO REASON. Why, I have never been able to figure that out.
Do you want to know that reason? That reason is because for many many years, New Jersey had strict price controls on insurance, and strict regulations on who companies were forced to insure via residual market share requirements.
This was no doubt a sincere effort on the part of some socialist dickhead in the interest of "affordability", same as socialist dickheads always try to legislate. What it resulted in is many insurers simply leaving the state entirely. For companies who opted not to leave, radically rising claims costs (driven by high-risk people secure in the knowledge they probably couldn't be dropped or priced out of the market) combined with dramatically restricted revenue, meant that customer service and quality dissolved to the point of crisis.
Just like it always does when well-meaning socialist dickheads think they can legislate the basic fundamentals of economics out of existence. Yet, somehow, they never manage to foresee this as an inevitable result of being a socialist dickhead.
Ranger50 wrote: Then why can't I "get the benefit of doubt" for no claims in years?
With my insurer (State Farm, though that is only relevant in passing) I get a substantial discount for no claims - and that is on a per-policy basis, not even a per-household basis. I was able to save about $800 a year by transferring a 20-year-old, minimal-claims policy from my old Pontiac onto the car I bought for my teenaged daughter. This despite the fact that several other policies in the household had claims against them.
If you think your rates are going up "for no reason" you need to look into the concept of residual market insurance and also investigate the rate regulations in your state of residence. When they pay out more than they take in, that money has to come from somewhere . Just like people who use the emergency room for general healthcare, the cost burden gets shared around to those who actually are paying their bills.
mad_machine wrote: That was one of the reasons I stopped owning New cars and insuring them for full coverage. Back when I had my Hyundai Tiburon, I had full coverage through SF. after putting it into a ditch to avoid broadsiding a clueless mommyvan.. It took them a week to process my claim after an insurance adjuster looked my car over. They declared it a total loss and told me that because the car was a loss.. they would only cover ONE week's worth of rental car coverage rather than the full month. Then it took them a month to get me the money. I had just gotten my new job.. so I was very broke at the time and three weeks worth of rental car coverage came out of my pocket until I could get another car. Never had a new car since and will never carry full coverage again
You tell them to get berkeleyed, your policy has a month rental coverage, you get it. I've had to do exactly that before. Took 3 or 4 back and forths to get that resolved....each time they called, they added a week, finally the last time they said "However long it takes". My old redline was in the bodyshop for 33 days, mainly because the rejects refused to authorize the proper sideskirts for the redline package. I refused to take the car three times with standard ion sideskirts. Something about the redline specific ones costed 4 times as much.....so the adjuster refused them and attempted to substitute the base ones. Then again, my policy was probably different.
Insurance is evil until you need it.
Replaced my windhield after a rock hit it. Paid for the fender etc for a guy I backed into. No repercussions at all.
I have Farmers through a local agent. anytime I have a question, they are very helpful.
iceracer wrote: Insurance is evil until you need it. Replaced my windhield after a rock hit it. Paid for the fender etc for a guy I backed into. No repercussions at all. I have Farmers through a local agent. anytime I have a question, they are very helpful.
look back over the years, count up the thousands of dollars you paid them without ever making a claim..
how much did that windshield and fender actually cost you?
In reply to novaderrik:
How much would my totaled 2 year old Acura cost me if I didn't have it insured? A hell of a lot more than I ever paid in insurance.
How much would my my burned up tractor have cost me if I didn't have it insured? $20k to replace it, but since I did have inurance, it paid every cent to rebuild it because I had a replacement cost policy.
How much is my recently hail damaged roof and gutters on three buildings going to cost me? $500, because that's what my deductible is.
Like the other guy said, insurance is evil until you need it, then it's a Godsend.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to novaderrik: How much would my totaled 2 year old Acura cost me if I didn't have it insured? A hell of a lot more than I ever paid in insurance. How much would my my burned up tractor have cost me if I didn't have it insured? $20k to replace it, but since I did have inurance, it paid every cent to rebuild it because I had a replacement cost policy. How much is my recently hail damaged roof and gutters on three buildings going to cost me? $500, because that's what my deductible is. Like the other guy said, insurance is evil until you need it, then it's a Godsend.
you're welcome..
(that's for the "thank you" that you forgot to put in there that goes out to all the other people that have paid for all the stuff you've wrecked).
In reply to novaderrik:
I didn't wreck anything, so no need to thank you or anyone else. BTW, nice way to skirt the point of my comment when you didn't have anything better to say.
novaderrik wrote: look back over the years, count up the thousands of dollars you paid them without ever making a claim.. how much did that windshield and fender actually cost you?
That's HOW insurance WORKS. You bet against yourself. If you don't like the concept of insurance, buy the absolute minimum required, or do without whatever it is that requires insurance.
But don't call the system EVIL, because it's not. Did you seriously think that insurance companies exist to collect a couple of hundred dollars from each client, and then pay out many thousands to each claim?
Really, where do you think that money comes from ?
Let's do some simple math here:
I've lived in my house for 20 years. During that time, I have paid, on average, $600 per year for pretty good homeowner's insurance. That's a grand total of $12,000.
If my house blew away tonight, State Farm would cut me a check for approximately $250,000 - replacement value, plus an allowance to replace general contents, plus special coverage for computer equipment, jewelry, and some other valuables.
$250,000 - $12,000 = $238,000.
Where does money to make up that shortfall come from? The goodness of State Farm's heart? Directly out of the CEO's bonus pay? Thin air?
Duke wrote: Where does money to make up that shortfall come from? The goodness of State Farm's heart? Directly out of the CEO's bonus pay? Thin air?
I have seen the CEO of State Farm in a Lowe's dressed in overalls
Duke wrote: Let's do some simple math here: I've lived in my house for 20 years. During that time, I have paid, on average, $600 per year for pretty good homeowner's insurance. That's a grand total of $12,000. If my house blew away tonight, State Farm would cut me a check for approximately $250,000 - replacement value, plus an allowance to replace general contents, plus special coverage for computer equipment, jewelry, and some other valuables. $250,000 - $12,000 = $238,000. Where does money to make up that shortfall come from? The goodness of State Farm's heart? Directly out of the CEO's bonus pay? Thin air?
You don;t think they just sit on all the money in a vault do you? They invest it heavily and make money on the returns
In reply to mad_machine:
Oh no! A company that makes money!!! Evil I tell you, EVIL!!!!
mad_machine wrote: You don;t think they just sit on all the money in a vault do you? They invest it heavily and make money on the returns
You show me an investment that can make an almost 2100% return over 20 years - at a consistent enough rate to insure solvency at all times - and I will invest every penny I own in it. Right now. That's what they would need to do to pay off my house tomorrow, using only my premiums as capital, since people seem so upset at having to pay money into the system that they might not get back.
Don't forget that if my house had blown away after a single payment of $600, they would have still cut me a check for $250,000.
Duke wrote: Let's do some simple math here: I've lived in my house for 20 years. During that time, I have paid, on average, $600 per year for pretty good homeowner's insurance. That's a grand total of $12,000. If my house blew away tonight, State Farm would cut me a check for approximately $250,000 - replacement value, plus an allowance to replace general contents, plus special coverage for computer equipment, jewelry, and some other valuables. $250,000 - $12,000 = $238,000. Where does money to make up that shortfall come from? The goodness of State Farm's heart? Directly out of the CEO's bonus pay? Thin air?
a good chunk of it comes from all the people that didn't buy houses in places that are prone to having them blown away.
State Farm almost doubled the cost of my homeowner's insurance back in '03 because a hurricane ripped thru Florida in '02. they said it was to cover "inflation", but they started talking about it right after the storm, which was unlikely to be a coincidence... i live in MN, where hurricanes are an extremely rare phenomenon.. i was pissed, but i needed to have it insured because Wells Fargo said so, and it was cheaper to stay with them than to switch to someone else. Wells Fargo also made me have $200k worth of coverage on a house that i owed $103k on and was worth $145k..
i stand by my opinion that insurance is evil.. as are banks..
novaderrik wrote: i stand by my opinion that insurance is evil.. as are banks..
And I stand by my opinion that you don't truly understand the concept of how either one works. Good day, sir.
You'll need to log in to post.
