How Allstate’s auto insurance algorithm squeezes big spenders(themarkup.org)
themarkup.org
How Allstate’s auto insurance algorithm squeezes big spenders
https://themarkup.org/allstates-algorithm/2020/02/25/car-insurance-suckers-list
166 comments
I think high deductibles are an excellent choice for those of us who do well financially. I do that myself. But I should note that 40% of Americans can't handle sudden a $400 expense, so it doesn't work well for everybody: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nearly-40-of-americans-cant-cov...
But for people on lower incomes, why would they be better served with low-deductible (and expensive) policies? If they can't afford a sudden $400 expense, why is spending additional money each month for a more comprehensive policy a good idea? Remember, auto insurance doesn't cover mechanical failures.
A perfectly valid option is to have a higher deductible, and use offset that with putting the funds that would have been needed for the more expensive policy into a general savings account. However, that does require some financial discipline and planning.
And for people who make little enough money where saving that money every month isn't a viable option, they really have no business buying any sort of comprehensive auto insurance anyway. Liability only insurance is far cheaper, and provides all the protection necessary to prevent a car accident from being financially world-ending.
A perfectly valid option is to have a higher deductible, and use offset that with putting the funds that would have been needed for the more expensive policy into a general savings account. However, that does require some financial discipline and planning.
And for people who make little enough money where saving that money every month isn't a viable option, they really have no business buying any sort of comprehensive auto insurance anyway. Liability only insurance is far cheaper, and provides all the protection necessary to prevent a car accident from being financially world-ending.
> And for people who make little enough money where saving that money every month isn't a viable option, they really have no business buying any sort of comprehensive auto insurance anyway. Liability only insurance is far cheaper, and provides all the protection necessary to prevent a car accident from being financially world-ending.
You might want to consider this from a different perspective.
For the well-paid like myself who has invested well and has substantial savings, a liability insurance claim that could potentially cost several hundred thousand dollars is "financially world-ending", while having to pay for repairs on my car after an accident is not.
But for someone with no savings, being unable to drive their car because they cannot afford to pay for repairs after an accident may mean losing their job (public transportation isn't so great where they live) and definitely qualifies as "financially world-ending" for them. Whereas several hundred thousand dollars of liability is actually LESS of a threat -- the lawyers can quickly discover that they don't own anything worth collecting and may not even go after their assets, but even if they do, at worst it empties their bank account (which we presumed has less than 400 dollars in it).
You might want to consider this from a different perspective.
For the well-paid like myself who has invested well and has substantial savings, a liability insurance claim that could potentially cost several hundred thousand dollars is "financially world-ending", while having to pay for repairs on my car after an accident is not.
But for someone with no savings, being unable to drive their car because they cannot afford to pay for repairs after an accident may mean losing their job (public transportation isn't so great where they live) and definitely qualifies as "financially world-ending" for them. Whereas several hundred thousand dollars of liability is actually LESS of a threat -- the lawyers can quickly discover that they don't own anything worth collecting and may not even go after their assets, but even if they do, at worst it empties their bank account (which we presumed has less than 400 dollars in it).
This sounds painfully like somebody who is not and never has been poor.
> Low/no deductible policies that cover regular issues amount to forced savings. - My insurance professor at FSU
At low income, what makes sense is to get a cheaper used car. Bam, you've got $1k for an emergency car expense. That $400 stat, if it can be believed, spans from no income up nearly to median income.
Look at the bar graph. It's hard to tell exactly what the numbers are, if people chose multiple answers, but 40% has to be based on the idea that using a credit card even if you pay it off at the next statement means you "can't handle" an expense. That's crazy. It's basically prepper/goldbug logic. Consumer credit is the devil, so anyone who uses it has failed at life.
Oddly enough, high deductibles also work well for those people who maintain their health and prioritize it financially.
But the penalties for deferring maintenance/repairs on your car are less severe than deferring maintenance for your body. No matter what happens to your car, you can throw enough money at it to fix it, or at the very least, replace it with something comparable. If you get into an accident you can tape the bumper back on until you get it repaired (or never repair it)
But if you decide "I can't really afford this $1500 colonoscopy this year, and honey if we defer that $3000 MRI for your abdominal pain to next year too, then we can do them both in one year and hit our deductible"... if you wait too long, something that would have been easy to treat may no longer be easy... or even possible to treat.
People shouldn't need to prioritize health care due to financial reasons.
But if you decide "I can't really afford this $1500 colonoscopy this year, and honey if we defer that $3000 MRI for your abdominal pain to next year too, then we can do them both in one year and hit our deductible"... if you wait too long, something that would have been easy to treat may no longer be easy... or even possible to treat.
People shouldn't need to prioritize health care due to financial reasons.
And don't have freak accidents, children with disabilities or other unforeseeable health-related issues.
I also discovered that if you claim the car towing assistance/emergency roadside assistance, they insurance would file as claim and that might be possibly considered as proper paid out claim and affects your insurance premium. You can get your lexisNexis report every year that corresponds to your driver profile based on SSN
https://risk.lexisnexis.com/products/clue-auto
https://risk.lexisnexis.com/products/clue-auto
We've also switched to higher deductibles since we have only ever made claims when it was a major accident. When I had a chip in my windshield, my agent didn't even know that they covered that "for free". I had to tell her, so I guess it's not widely know. It makes sense though -- it is in their best interest to pay for chip repair without any reason for the customer to avoid it (deductible) since it can avoid a costly windshield replacement if that chip enlarges or if there are greater injuries in an accident due to the weaker windshield.
I haven't seen any major rate increases on our car insurance, but our umbrella policy premiums went 4x this year (and we switched companies too). We're with Farmers for nearly everything now, but comparing rates with other agencies is on my to do list in case anyone has done the homework and has a recommendation.
I haven't seen any major rate increases on our car insurance, but our umbrella policy premiums went 4x this year (and we switched companies too). We're with Farmers for nearly everything now, but comparing rates with other agencies is on my to do list in case anyone has done the homework and has a recommendation.
A sizable portion of the car washes in Los Angeles have an aggressive chip repair salesman who will circle all the chips and aggressively try to sell you on free windshield repair. Guy was always confused and upset about why I wouldn't want to buy something that was free.
Finally one day my windshield had enough chips to be replaced. Guy sees me pulling out my insurance card and goes "Mercury? They don't cover anything!" so now when the guy starts walking over I say "I'm with Mercury" and he immediately moves on.
Finally one day my windshield had enough chips to be replaced. Guy sees me pulling out my insurance card and goes "Mercury? They don't cover anything!" so now when the guy starts walking over I say "I'm with Mercury" and he immediately moves on.
I was in my front yard performing an oil change when one of these window chip sales people started bothering me. I literally had to threaten violence to get her to leave my property.
Is this a recommendation for Mercury? :D
You made three claims that averaged $40 each? And you weren't aware until your agent told you that you were paying for full glass coverage?
The lesson may be that insurance agents are terrible people. I've heard plenty of FUD about Geico, but I wonder if it's really just because they sell direct.
The lesson may be that insurance agents are terrible people. I've heard plenty of FUD about Geico, but I wonder if it's really just because they sell direct.
The best thing you can do is shop for auto insurance every year or two. The longer you stay with a particular company the more likely they are to very slowly and carefully hit you with small rate increases until you're paying far more than their competitors will charge you. Insurance companies understand and exploit consumer behavior better than even the best marketers.
I have USAA and can't say enough good things about them. Whenever I call them, they're there to walk through whatever I need with me. The first thing they ask is if everyone is ok; it's trivial, but means something. In general, their rates are really good; it used to be that, when other companies called, you could tell them you have USAA and they're acknowledge they can't match the rates and hang up.
Admittedly, not everyone has access to USAA but, if you do, I highly recommend them.
Noting this because I've been using them for insurance for decades with no intention of switching.
Admittedly, not everyone has access to USAA but, if you do, I highly recommend them.
Noting this because I've been using them for insurance for decades with no intention of switching.
Another USAA member here. I haven't had to do an auto claim yet, besides simple windshields, but have had several property claims.
They have been great. In fact, right now USAA is in the subrogation process against the offending party for a claim on a bicycle.
I've been happy with their insurance products, their even better customer service, and have no plans of changing.
They have been great. In fact, right now USAA is in the subrogation process against the offending party for a claim on a bicycle.
I've been happy with their insurance products, their even better customer service, and have no plans of changing.
Counterpoint, had USAA auto for 20+ years, added 2 young drivers and premiums went up 4200 per year. Switched to Geico and recouped 2700 of that.
Always shop around.
Always shop around.
Geico is so huge I expected their customer service to be an absolute shitshow. Then I totaled my car, and they were actually helpful and easy to work with. I remain shocked to this day, and I’m still 90% convinced it was a fluke.
Geico seems to do a good job at auto insurance. But like everybody, they try to get you to also sign up for other insurance, and it appears all other insurance under their banner is actually from random other companies that aren't run by them or seamlessly integrated with their systems. And furthermore, their partners seem to be only interested in the association so they can overcharge, more than making up for any multi-line discount.
When I had a bicycle accident, they fully covered my new bike and related damaged equipment under my renters insurance policy. Service has been uniformly excellent for car claims as well.
> when other companies called, you could tell them you have USAA and they're acknowledge they can't match the rates
This is funny, I actually do say this. I co-founded Goodcover, we provide renters insurance and USAA is an inspiration. But we still have a really hard time beating them! I'm also a USAA Member (car insurance) and also can't say enough good things about them.
This is funny, I actually do say this. I co-founded Goodcover, we provide renters insurance and USAA is an inspiration. But we still have a really hard time beating them! I'm also a USAA Member (car insurance) and also can't say enough good things about them.
Recently filed a collision claim with USAA. They undershot the original estimate but had no issues paying the full amount for repairs when getting the quote.
They refused to replace car seats for me when a USAA member hit me.
Not sure what the specifics of the accident were, but car seats are rarely damaged unless the accident is major, which may very easily total the car. If the car wasn't totaled, which certainly sounds like the case, then it seems unusual to have an accident serious enough to damage the seats. Unusual, but not impossible. Maybe that's the reason for the denial.
I personally had no issues when one of their insured drivers hit my car. I waited for the police report, which clearly stated the other driver was at fault, and I was promptly paid by them for the damage to my vehicle. I didn't have to file anything through my insurance and they were very easy going about the whole thing.
I personally had no issues when one of their insured drivers hit my car. I waited for the police report, which clearly stated the other driver was at fault, and I was promptly paid by them for the damage to my vehicle. I didn't have to file anything through my insurance and they were very easy going about the whole thing.
They sent me to the only authorized repair center within 200 miles, then the repair center left my car outside in the rain and filled with water for two months), then USAA fought me over my demands to have the car replaced. Only for the repair shop to have an unlicensed tech work on the car and do 80k in damage due to his failed welding / repairs.. It took 9 months to get that sorted out and USAA was horrible the whole time. I couldn't believe it.
Previously I had an M3 that had the bumper ripped off while parked and they had it taken care of fast, even going after the repair shop for non oem parts under the bumper.
I guess it's a really mixed bag with them over the past few years they've been expanding.
Previously I had an M3 that had the bumper ripped off while parked and they had it taken care of fast, even going after the repair shop for non oem parts under the bumper.
I guess it's a really mixed bag with them over the past few years they've been expanding.
I was hit in a chain reaction collision started by a USAA member. No particular problem with them paying, but I chose subrogation.
[deleted]
I want a product like policygenius.com, but instead of life insurance they have my entire insurance portfolio (auto, home, renters, umbrella, personal property) and constantly price shop for me automatically as a broker between me and every major insurer. I would also like such a product to be structured so that they can never be bought by Intuit or another incumbent, preferably in some sort of employee owned coop mutual company model (if Vanguard and USAA had an insurance broker child with a tech first demeanor).
Sidenote: I’ve been with State Farm for over 20 years, and my rates have only gone down.
Sidenote: I’ve been with State Farm for over 20 years, and my rates have only gone down.
I have a lot of sympathy for this feeling - I am a USAA member, but through family, nothing I did. I feel fortunate that I qualify. My cofounder and I are trying to build a company a lot like you describe to bring "USAA style" to more people. We just did our launch HN last week (Goodcover). It's renters only right now so won't do exactly what you describe, but just wanted to say I totally get where you're coming from.
[deleted]
A few months ago I switched insurance. I did some shopping with getjerry.com was very slick, didn’t end up going through them though because of large savings when going directly through the insurance company. Will try them again one year in the future. Saved $1.5K/yr
I've been with State Farm for over a decade in Texas. While I agree that I should have spent a hell of a lot more time shopping around, I'll also admit that I have _no idea_ how a lot of insurance works and frankly I don't care to spend that mental budget to learn to game it. My insurance rates are affordable to me and have only ever gone _down_ over the past decade. It even went down after having a collision and claiming about $6k in damages. The claims process was not a nightmare (contrast with stories from my parents' insurance companies) and was quite easy to deal with.
if you've been with State Farm for over a decade, I would reckon you're getting hosed. State Farm agents only get quote from State Farm - they're not an independent brokerage. When I was shopping around (mid-30's, family, standard 2 cars) in the DFW area, they were the most expensive.
Go check out an independent insurance agent. It's not "gaming" it literally takes 20-30 minutes, and could save you $1500 over the whole year (especially if you have multiple cars).
To "nudge" you in the right direction, buy not switching, you're basically saying, "I make money at $1000/hour, so it's okay that I don't expend the mental budget to compare quotes".
Go check out an independent insurance agent. It's not "gaming" it literally takes 20-30 minutes, and could save you $1500 over the whole year (especially if you have multiple cars).
To "nudge" you in the right direction, buy not switching, you're basically saying, "I make money at $1000/hour, so it's okay that I don't expend the mental budget to compare quotes".
That seems like a low time estimate to me, because the products being compared are opaque. What insurers promise they'll do and what they actually do when you need them are not always closely tied. So quickly shopping based on price alone encourages companies to shift from visible to invisible costs.
Car insurance is not that opaque. They are fairly standard policies, with only a few optional items. An independent insurance broker can quickly navigate through these for you.
You're right, though, that what insures promise to do and what they'll do are two different things - its hard to price that in upfront. I don't think the insurer in question, State Farm, is exceptional in that regard either. They dropped a family members coverage after 2 hail storms. They dropped a friend's company's policies after a single claim.
State Farm makes its money by bilking people with it's solo agent model. "Talk to your friendly neighborhood State Farm agent"...who only gets quotes from State Farm.
We would not do that in any other industry. Insurance is a commodity. It's like electronic items. We price hunt Amazon vs. Newegg vs Monoprice because we're nerds, we should do the same thing from our insurance providers.
You don't have to settle on some no-name insurance agency - you can set a high bar, but expanding your marketplace of options from 1 to 5 or 6 can only mean good things for you as a consumer.
You're right, though, that what insures promise to do and what they'll do are two different things - its hard to price that in upfront. I don't think the insurer in question, State Farm, is exceptional in that regard either. They dropped a family members coverage after 2 hail storms. They dropped a friend's company's policies after a single claim.
State Farm makes its money by bilking people with it's solo agent model. "Talk to your friendly neighborhood State Farm agent"...who only gets quotes from State Farm.
We would not do that in any other industry. Insurance is a commodity. It's like electronic items. We price hunt Amazon vs. Newegg vs Monoprice because we're nerds, we should do the same thing from our insurance providers.
You don't have to settle on some no-name insurance agency - you can set a high bar, but expanding your marketplace of options from 1 to 5 or 6 can only mean good things for you as a consumer.
Commodities are goods whose properties are standardized and, frequently, graded by an authority. As you give examples of yourself, the real test is what happens long after the initial purchase. Figuring out that side of the bargain takes more than a few minutes getting a price quote.
Car insurance is definitely not like a given electronic item, which is made to the same standards by a single manufacturer. It it's like some nerd purchase, it's more like flash drives. In theory commodities, manufacturers have a complicated set of incentives and the actual quality of the product may be hard to determine without extensive use.
I'm not against people shopping around. If people want to invest the time, by all means do it. But I object to the notion it's as simple as getting a quote. Getting more options can in fact sometimes mean a bad thing if you switch from a proven-reliable product to something that is cheaper up front but worse later.
Car insurance is definitely not like a given electronic item, which is made to the same standards by a single manufacturer. It it's like some nerd purchase, it's more like flash drives. In theory commodities, manufacturers have a complicated set of incentives and the actual quality of the product may be hard to determine without extensive use.
I'm not against people shopping around. If people want to invest the time, by all means do it. But I object to the notion it's as simple as getting a quote. Getting more options can in fact sometimes mean a bad thing if you switch from a proven-reliable product to something that is cheaper up front but worse later.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The GP is not suggesting that anyone "game" insurance rates, just that one should get a couple quotes after a several years to make sure you aren't being price gouged for being a loyal customer.
It's free, takes less than a half hour, and there's no obligation to purchase anything, it's just a quote.
It's free, takes less than a half hour, and there's no obligation to purchase anything, it's just a quote.
People get mad if their rates go up for no reason. Geico appears to have a rather clever (perhaps obvious) algorithm - it seems like after a few years, they start raising your rate when you make any change to your policy, no matter what it is. So they aren't jacking up your rate at random times, but it's always ratcheting up.
I had State Farm in Texas. I knew I was paying more than other people, but didn't bother to switch.
Then one day while I was on the way to IAH to fly to Europe, an illegal alien in a stolen van (so no license, insurance, etc...) crossed the median and hit me head-on.
State Farm took care of everything. Ev. Ry. Thing. Even made sure I didn't miss the flight.
When I came back to America a couple of weeks later, my completely repaired car was sitting in their parking lot waiting for me. That's why I stick with State Farm, and am OK paying more than I would for "discount" insurance.
Then one day while I was on the way to IAH to fly to Europe, an illegal alien in a stolen van (so no license, insurance, etc...) crossed the median and hit me head-on.
State Farm took care of everything. Ev. Ry. Thing. Even made sure I didn't miss the flight.
When I came back to America a couple of weeks later, my completely repaired car was sitting in their parking lot waiting for me. That's why I stick with State Farm, and am OK paying more than I would for "discount" insurance.
State Farm has only ever reduced my rate. They do it about once a year. I have shopped around and changing policies would cost be upwards of $50/month more than I currently pay.
Granted the best thing you can do for low auto insurance rates is to barely drive. Personally I drive less than 5k miles a year, and my rate reflects that.
Granted the best thing you can do for low auto insurance rates is to barely drive. Personally I drive less than 5k miles a year, and my rate reflects that.
Similarly, I've been with GEICO for over a decade now for my car and homeowner's insurance. GEICO is just a homeowner's broker in New York, Liberty Mutual actually insures my house. I shop every year or two and I've never been able to find a better deal than I already have for comparable coverage, even directly quoting through Liberty Mutual. Regardless, my GIECO rates have been consistently going up these past few years, but it seems every other insurer is also raising rates for people like me (location, history, etc) every time I check.
I've never had to file a claim for my homeowner's insurance and I've never been at fault in a car crash, but I've heard some not so great stories about GEICO so hopefully I'll never have to find out.
I've never had to file a claim for my homeowner's insurance and I've never been at fault in a car crash, but I've heard some not so great stories about GEICO so hopefully I'll never have to find out.
I have to say, I was impressed with my GEICO claims experience.
A GEICO customer hit my car, entirely her fault, so I just went through her insurance, didn't even notify mine. GEICO was extremely helpful, polite, and prompt and I wasn't even their customer. I opted to use their "full service claims center" which was located at [local reputable body shop/dealership]. I showed up with my car, they had a loaner ready for me up front ready to go with the keys in the ignition and the loaner car was very nice (just a family sedan but a nicer one). The whole process was just very straightforward and easy.
Several years later my car was hit by a State Farm customer, entirely their fault, I went through their insurance again. That whole experience was just shit. First they were disorganized and unhelpful. I decided to use their "full service claim center" since my GEICO experience was so good. The place they sent me to was out of the way and somewhere I wasn't familiar with. When I arrived it was some shady looking dumpy body shop. [I almost walked away then, wish I did]. Clerk didn't seem to be expecting me and wasn't prepared, even though I had an appointment to drop off the car and nobody else was there, so I had to fill out paperwork because State Farm didn't send over my information, I guess. After that I had to wait forever for Enterprise to pick me up (so "full service" means that the clerk will make a phone call). Then at Enterprise I had to stand in line and fill out more paperwork. They gave me a Fiat 500, which doesn't have a full back seat and at some point I had two passengers who couldn't fit into the back seat. After they finished the body work they literally didn't put the wheel back on right and it was a couple inches from falling off my car while I was driving. My usual mechanic was shocked.
A GEICO customer hit my car, entirely her fault, so I just went through her insurance, didn't even notify mine. GEICO was extremely helpful, polite, and prompt and I wasn't even their customer. I opted to use their "full service claims center" which was located at [local reputable body shop/dealership]. I showed up with my car, they had a loaner ready for me up front ready to go with the keys in the ignition and the loaner car was very nice (just a family sedan but a nicer one). The whole process was just very straightforward and easy.
Several years later my car was hit by a State Farm customer, entirely their fault, I went through their insurance again. That whole experience was just shit. First they were disorganized and unhelpful. I decided to use their "full service claim center" since my GEICO experience was so good. The place they sent me to was out of the way and somewhere I wasn't familiar with. When I arrived it was some shady looking dumpy body shop. [I almost walked away then, wish I did]. Clerk didn't seem to be expecting me and wasn't prepared, even though I had an appointment to drop off the car and nobody else was there, so I had to fill out paperwork because State Farm didn't send over my information, I guess. After that I had to wait forever for Enterprise to pick me up (so "full service" means that the clerk will make a phone call). Then at Enterprise I had to stand in line and fill out more paperwork. They gave me a Fiat 500, which doesn't have a full back seat and at some point I had two passengers who couldn't fit into the back seat. After they finished the body work they literally didn't put the wheel back on right and it was a couple inches from falling off my car while I was driving. My usual mechanic was shocked.
Or build a personal relationship with your agent. I occasionally check my rates with competitors, and they can never beat my existing rate. My agent will call us any time there is a new program or discount that might save us money.
My agent understands the value of a long term customer who brings in other long term customers. When we started with him it was because my mother in law was already a customer. We just had car insurance at the time.
But as we moved on in life, we added a second car, then a house, then an umbrella policy, and so on.
My agent understands the value of a long term customer who brings in other long term customers. When we started with him it was because my mother in law was already a customer. We just had car insurance at the time.
But as we moved on in life, we added a second car, then a house, then an umbrella policy, and so on.
Shopping for auto insurance has been completely useless for me. When I compared across multiple insurance companies, I was able to pick the "lowest cost" provider. However, when I went to sign up, the price offered was completely different from what I saw shopping on their website.
Also, I recently tried to compare my current auto policy with a different insurance provider. The new insurance agent told me my rates would go up with them, so I obviously declined to change my auto insurance.
I understand that periodically shopping for better rates is the logical thing to do, but in my auto insurance shopping experience, the numbers all seem arbitrary so shopping is not useful.
Also, I recently tried to compare my current auto policy with a different insurance provider. The new insurance agent told me my rates would go up with them, so I obviously declined to change my auto insurance.
I understand that periodically shopping for better rates is the logical thing to do, but in my auto insurance shopping experience, the numbers all seem arbitrary so shopping is not useful.
> However, when I went to sign up, the price offered was completely different from what I saw shopping on their website.
In my experience, the websites use an entirely different algorithm than whatever phone agents have access to.
I don't bother going through insurance websites' lead generation workflows, I just call a handful and get quotes on the phone from them.
In my experience, the websites use an entirely different algorithm than whatever phone agents have access to.
I don't bother going through insurance websites' lead generation workflows, I just call a handful and get quotes on the phone from them.
Why is it that almost every company that provides a service with the potential to be in perpetuity, like insurance, always fee creep their customers to the point that you switch because you know you're being fucked compared to what the market "intro rate" for new customers is? You switch only to be back what you were paying before the switch after three months or another time lapse.
When there are few providers in any market, they are colluding to fuck consumers, that are forced into a musical chairs game for little savings.
When there are few providers in any market, they are colluding to fuck consumers, that are forced into a musical chairs game for little savings.
I like to think of this as "attention arbitrage".
Bank fees are a good example. To you and I, an extra $3 bank fee is annoying but not worth allocating enough of our attention to avoid it. We aren't in the business of spending our whole damn day minimizing random bank fees.
But bank administrators are in that business. They spend their whole day trying to figure out how to maximize thieir profit and when they roll out a fee they can apply to millions of customers. There are enough customers hit by this they could summon enough total attention to push back, but the attention is divided among all those people and easily conquered. Meanwhile, the bank's effort to apply that fee is concentrated among a small number of people whose very job it is to do stuff like this.
So banks and other businesses discover cases like this where the quantity of attention they are willing to devote to something is larger than what any individual customer is, and that's where they squeeze.
Bank fees are a good example. To you and I, an extra $3 bank fee is annoying but not worth allocating enough of our attention to avoid it. We aren't in the business of spending our whole damn day minimizing random bank fees.
But bank administrators are in that business. They spend their whole day trying to figure out how to maximize thieir profit and when they roll out a fee they can apply to millions of customers. There are enough customers hit by this they could summon enough total attention to push back, but the attention is divided among all those people and easily conquered. Meanwhile, the bank's effort to apply that fee is concentrated among a small number of people whose very job it is to do stuff like this.
So banks and other businesses discover cases like this where the quantity of attention they are willing to devote to something is larger than what any individual customer is, and that's where they squeeze.
Because someone ran an analysis that says you can make $X more by doing one thing that doesn't cost you anything. Many companies just look at the numbers and say "sounds good."
It helps that since they are insurers, they know how make this analysis with a large degree of confidence.
It helps that since they are insurers, they know how make this analysis with a large degree of confidence.
I imagine it's because these are almost always public companies that need to show earnings growth. They are always trying to improve margins and their stock price. That's much easier than actually figuring out a great marketing plan to acquire new customers. And also far cheaper, too.
I wish this was a reality here in BC, Canada, unfortunately our required basic car insurance provider is a crown corporation. So instead of competition we get to pay the highest rates in Canada, incur annual increases despite ZERO claims and finally, watch growing debt because of an inherently flawed insurance model. Good thing we have oceans and mountains..
This and also do not signup for e-delivery of new policies. I had this on with farmers for home insurance and never realized they had increased the premiums every year. It was my problem that I did not bother to login and check for the documentation section and then open the docs to see the price changes.
Yes, and you can shop easier by just uploading your current declarations page PDF or linking your account at gabi.com. Most people don't know they are overpaying. [Disclosure: I work there]
In Italy, auto insurance contracts are limited by law to one year in length, so that people are encouraged to re-evaluate their position and get new quotes more often, promoting competition.
I've never seen one longer than 6 months in the US. And I don't even think it's a contract for 6 months, you can cancel anytime and get a refund for the months you don't have it.
One year auto insurance in the US is actually super common. I never had it offerered/suggested to me until I became a homeowner - at which point my broker got me a small discount for doing a full year policy for both home and auto.
Sounds like a classic case of frog-boiling.
They call it the "loyalty tax".
Sad world we live in, right?
Sad world we live in, right?
Probably why AAA likes to make a point of how long you've been a member. People don't want to lose that 'status'
I'd imagine each of these companies has a bean counter for growing their subscriber base. When all insurers raise their prices a little on every policy renewal, people will rotate insurers and who's ever in charge of growth looks good due to new sign-ups, it justifies marketing spend, etc.
How insurers determine your rate is generally available online [0]. That being said, some of the documents are almost unreadable.
I recently tried to figure out how I could optimize the amount of renter's insurance coverage I got from State Farm for the premium paid (I'm currently paying the minimum premium that they'll charge for any renter's insurance policy; $125/year) and their posted document was so dense and filled with jargon that I couldn't do it [1]. The document only contained the changes made since the previous approval. But I couldn't actually find the previous approval. So I was missing quite a few critical pages.
[0]: This is for NY: https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/home/NY
[1]: The overall filing package (https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/search/filingSummary.xhtm...). The rate document is named "NY HO 2019-05-01 Pages Changed.pdf"
I recently tried to figure out how I could optimize the amount of renter's insurance coverage I got from State Farm for the premium paid (I'm currently paying the minimum premium that they'll charge for any renter's insurance policy; $125/year) and their posted document was so dense and filled with jargon that I couldn't do it [1]. The document only contained the changes made since the previous approval. But I couldn't actually find the previous approval. So I was missing quite a few critical pages.
[0]: This is for NY: https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/home/NY
[1]: The overall filing package (https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/search/filingSummary.xhtm...). The rate document is named "NY HO 2019-05-01 Pages Changed.pdf"
The complexity seems to be the point.
Many states allow complete opacity, and in those states, the companies operate completely opaquely. In states in which information is required to be made public, it's buried in overwhelming detail and hidden behind "change X from 0.04 to 0.007 from sub-reference 37N" language. That's deliberate.
Many states allow complete opacity, and in those states, the companies operate completely opaquely. In states in which information is required to be made public, it's buried in overwhelming detail and hidden behind "change X from 0.04 to 0.007 from sub-reference 37N" language. That's deliberate.
They're selling a service that people are required to buy. It should be no surprise that the equilibrium reached is "be as consumer hostile as possible without violating the letter of the law enough to get told to stop"
There are lots of things we are 'required to buy' - food, shelter, etc. There is still competition, though, and we don't see price gouging in food, for example, just because people have to buy it.
If insurance is so overpriced, then why don't other companies enter the market?
I don't think insurance companies have crazy profit margins, so I don't think it is really price gouging going on. It might be shady competitive practices, to trick people into not realizing they are paying more, but I don't think it is because people are required to have insurance.
If insurance is so overpriced, then why don't other companies enter the market?
I don't think insurance companies have crazy profit margins, so I don't think it is really price gouging going on. It might be shady competitive practices, to trick people into not realizing they are paying more, but I don't think it is because people are required to have insurance.
(PDF Warning)
https://www.naic.org/documents/topic_insurance_industry_snap...
The United States' property and casualty industry's total profit margin on the whole was about nine tenths of a percent in 2018, which was a reversal from being net unprofitable in 2017.
There are about 2500 property and casualty insurance companies in the United States. Surely there's overestimation since (I'm guessing) the NAIC will count an insurance company in several states as several companies for the purposes of a count, but even if that's not the case, there are at least a hundred car insurance companies to choose from in any given state.
The purpose of an independent insurance agent (if everything goes right) is to help a customer select the best policy for their risk, and there are a ton of independent insurance agents, so one hopes that severe price gouging doesn't persist. However, not everyone uses an insurance agent - or the agent only writes with one business - so in practice, this kind of overpaying can occur to lots of people.
https://www.naic.org/documents/topic_insurance_industry_snap...
The United States' property and casualty industry's total profit margin on the whole was about nine tenths of a percent in 2018, which was a reversal from being net unprofitable in 2017.
There are about 2500 property and casualty insurance companies in the United States. Surely there's overestimation since (I'm guessing) the NAIC will count an insurance company in several states as several companies for the purposes of a count, but even if that's not the case, there are at least a hundred car insurance companies to choose from in any given state.
The purpose of an independent insurance agent (if everything goes right) is to help a customer select the best policy for their risk, and there are a ton of independent insurance agents, so one hopes that severe price gouging doesn't persist. However, not everyone uses an insurance agent - or the agent only writes with one business - so in practice, this kind of overpaying can occur to lots of people.
> There are lots of things we are 'required to buy' - food, shelter, etc. There is still competition, though, and we don't see price gouging in food, for example, just because people have to buy it.
No, but we absolutely see price gouging in shelter.
No, but we absolutely see price gouging in shelter.
Well I am new to US, had to buy renter's insurance; Geico and everybody offered for $20+ per month; but Lemonade quoted about $6. Almost similar coverage. Now for Car, Geico was most economical $86; Lemonade does not offer, Dealer said $125, Others were like $100-120.
I think as more startup companies enter insurance, prices are going to be better & more competitive.
I think as more startup companies enter insurance, prices are going to be better & more competitive.
> There is still competition, though, and we don't see price gouging in food, for example, just because people have to buy it.
There's not a law that requires me to buy food, nor a law that requires me to buy specific types of food. I can grow my own food, or buy from other people locally if I wanted to.
> If insurance is so overpriced, then why don't other companies enter the market?
It takes extremely deep pockets to be able to sell insurance in the first place, and it's a relatively regulated industry.
Anyone can grow some tomatoes and sell them to me at a farmers market with minimal overhead. Few can sell me comprehensive insurance that will pay out when I need it.
There's not a law that requires me to buy food, nor a law that requires me to buy specific types of food. I can grow my own food, or buy from other people locally if I wanted to.
> If insurance is so overpriced, then why don't other companies enter the market?
It takes extremely deep pockets to be able to sell insurance in the first place, and it's a relatively regulated industry.
Anyone can grow some tomatoes and sell them to me at a farmers market with minimal overhead. Few can sell me comprehensive insurance that will pay out when I need it.
Food and food sale is pretty regulated. There are probably even more regulations around food production than insurance.
Technically most states allow drivers to post a surety bond as an alternative to purchasing a liability insurance policy. But in practice most people don't have enough cash available.
A bond also loses you the personal/medical liability protection of auto insurance. Very few people who do have enough money would drive with only a bond, as the risks are pretty extreme.
even if you have the cash, it’s very not smart
to do so. you need about a million or so in liability (almost all cases settle under $5mm). insurance is far cheaper.
I suspect it is a result of internally misaligned incentives resulting in them valuing new customer money more than existing ones. It is one thing to alienate a loyal smaller base to gain a larger one, it sucks to be on the wrong end of but makes sense. In spite of the obvious that they have equal impact. I suspect it is because of who gets bonuses from it vs blame from losses. If sales and retention are separate departments then sales wins politically because they can generate new customers instead of just stemming losses.
Anyway the reason I think those dynamics instead is because I have seen it in cable, garbage collection, ISPs, and banks. They could be attempting old school dark patterns to exploit inertia and cognitive load in customers but that is a pennywise pound foolish move - the new customers have sales overhead expenses in addition to "maintenance" recurring costs.
Anyway the reason I think those dynamics instead is because I have seen it in cable, garbage collection, ISPs, and banks. They could be attempting old school dark patterns to exploit inertia and cognitive load in customers but that is a pennywise pound foolish move - the new customers have sales overhead expenses in addition to "maintenance" recurring costs.
I used to work in auto insurance pricing. The algorithms are relatively simple, but the filing is made as obfuscated as possible to fool the regulators, competitors, and the general public. There are no black box models or anything, it's usually just multiplicative factors, but good luck finding the factors and definitions.
> I'm currently paying the minimum premium that they'll charge for any renter's insurance policy; $125/year
Unless that number varies by state, someone may not be being honest with you.
I have a renter's policy with them for $115/yr.
Unless that number varies by state, someone may not be being honest with you.
I have a renter's policy with them for $115/yr.
I do believe it varies by state. I used to live in Indiana where the minimum premium was also $115/year.
FWIW, the authors also published an extensive methodology, which is ~700 words more than the article. https://themarkup.org/allstates-algorithm/2020/02/25/show-yo...
And there's a github repo: https://github.com/the-markup/investigation-allstates-algori...
And there's a github repo: https://github.com/the-markup/investigation-allstates-algori...
> One 36-year-old man from Prince George’s County, Md., who Allstate said in public records should have been paying $3,750 every six months, was instead being charged twice that, more than $7,500.
This man was being charged over $15,000/year for auto insurance?
This man was being charged over $15,000/year for auto insurance?
There is a situation in relative poverty where you become so risk averse you end up paying outsized prices for things because you can't afford the risk of a change.
If this person lost his ability to drive based on not being able to get insurance, challenging the insane amount he is being charged is just too much risk.
Who knows what kind of events have occurred in his credit history, personal life, social media, or other reputations where he doesn't believe he can get insurance again if he applied.
It's a don't rock the boat mentality when you are at a disadvantage.
Reality is, big data makes life utterly dystopian for many people. It was foreseeable, predictable, and as a society we let it happen.
If this person lost his ability to drive based on not being able to get insurance, challenging the insane amount he is being charged is just too much risk.
Who knows what kind of events have occurred in his credit history, personal life, social media, or other reputations where he doesn't believe he can get insurance again if he applied.
It's a don't rock the boat mentality when you are at a disadvantage.
Reality is, big data makes life utterly dystopian for many people. It was foreseeable, predictable, and as a society we let it happen.
Or they own a dozen vehicles.
Probably has a DUI or 2. Also possible that they have a car worth a lot, but I think normally that goes through a specialty insurance company, or is just "self-insured" for collision coverage so the value of the car doesn't affect the premium.
Would All State still insure a person like that? I thought most well known companies would drop people with DUIs and leave them for lesser known "high risk insurance" companies.
Ideally, Allstate would access risk accurately and set their rates appropriately. For high-variance situations like this, over-indexing your loss ratio seems like a not-so-bad move.
Yes, you can get our insurance with your two DUI's but your price is 2x expected loss. Pretty solid odds if you're pretty confident in your pricing model.
Yes, you can get our insurance with your two DUI's but your price is 2x expected loss. Pretty solid odds if you're pretty confident in your pricing model.
Sounds outrageous but he might be insuring several exotic cars. Obviously, TFA has established that he should be paying less.
I think this makes the most sense. I once looked into getting insurance for a muscle car with a big engine and the quote from one of the insurers was close to $500 per month (much higher than the one I ended up going with). That was many years ago so with inflation and an even faster car like a corvette, someone might easily be paying double that nowadays.
My airplane insurance costs less than that. $15k for auto insurance is insane.
Well, you're also much less likely to file an airplane claim than an automobile one. You're right that $15k is silly, but I'm not so sure it's the sort of silly you're implying here.
That rationale works for motorcycles, general aviation planes have both a dismal safety record and can destroy an entire home or crash into a sky-scraper, etc.
While technically true, most GA piston airplanes have liability limits of $1MM (sometimes $2MM, rarely more) and often per-passenger [or worse, per-person] sub-limits of $100K, so there's a cap on the liability payment the insurance company is signing up for.
The insurance industry is notoriously afraid of transparency, and the state-based rate filing system makes it too easy to divide and conquer. This is an industry ripe for disruption via total transparency.
“This is an industry ripe for disruption via total transparency.”
A lot of industries are ripe for this kind of disruption. With availability of more and more data there is a growing asymmetry between companies and consumers. Just yesterday I looked up something on Amazon. Sent the link to my girlfriend. She saw a price that was $10 more. Same often happens with flights. And in US healthcare the patient doesn’t even have the slightest idea what things will cost or what discount the insurance gets.
To have functioning markets both sides need information but with all these algorithms the information gets very one sided.
A lot of industries are ripe for this kind of disruption. With availability of more and more data there is a growing asymmetry between companies and consumers. Just yesterday I looked up something on Amazon. Sent the link to my girlfriend. She saw a price that was $10 more. Same often happens with flights. And in US healthcare the patient doesn’t even have the slightest idea what things will cost or what discount the insurance gets.
To have functioning markets both sides need information but with all these algorithms the information gets very one sided.
> Just yesterday I looked up something on Amazon. Sent the link to my girlfriend. She saw a price that was $10 more.
Out of curiosity, are you and your girlfriend in the same geographic market & served by the same amazon warehouse? And are you both prime members?
I wonder if this is personalized to the individual or based on other factors.
Out of curiosity, are you and your girlfriend in the same geographic market & served by the same amazon warehouse? And are you both prime members?
I wonder if this is personalized to the individual or based on other factors.
We live in the same house. She has Prime , I don’t.
Had the exact same experience back in December with an Echo Flex. I saw a good price, knew my roommate wanted one, so I went downstairs to let him know. His price was $10 higher even though he has Prime and I do not. Same address. The only difference I could think of was that he is a heavy user of multiple Echo devices while I own one that's in its box in a closet. He probably spends at least ten times as much annually with Amazon as I do.
I guess amazon views prime users as suckers who will pay more.
...for shipping. Free shipping costs $10.
I wanted to order something the other day that should be in a local store, but wasn't, and random specialty websites had stuff for $20 plus shipping. So I found something equivalent on Amazon for $8, and when they pestered me about signing up for Prime to get free shipping, I did it and then set a calendar reminder for a week later to cancel it after I got my order. This sort of game could well make people working at Amazon feel justified in manipulating customers, but there doesn't seem to be any choice except to play the game everybody is.
Random things on Amazon that I consider buying are often double or triple the price they should be, so I try to buy anywhere else if at all possible these days.
I wanted to order something the other day that should be in a local store, but wasn't, and random specialty websites had stuff for $20 plus shipping. So I found something equivalent on Amazon for $8, and when they pestered me about signing up for Prime to get free shipping, I did it and then set a calendar reminder for a week later to cancel it after I got my order. This sort of game could well make people working at Amazon feel justified in manipulating customers, but there doesn't seem to be any choice except to play the game everybody is.
Random things on Amazon that I consider buying are often double or triple the price they should be, so I try to buy anywhere else if at all possible these days.
Interesting.
Maybe it showed you the lowest-cost vendor, and showed her the lowest-cost vendor with Prime shipping? And the difference was $10?
Or was it shipped from and sold by the same place?
Maybe it showed you the lowest-cost vendor, and showed her the lowest-cost vendor with Prime shipping? And the difference was $10?
Or was it shipped from and sold by the same place?
No idea. Shipping would have been for both of us.
Not sure what you mean — prime members get faster shipping on prime items, so maybe it showed her the vender with “prime” and that was $10 more expensive.
Companies have done this, and it doesn't work as well as you think. This is because a lot of protected classes and some other politically controversial demographics (poor people, old people, etc.) _cost more money to insure_. That is because they unequivocally do get into more accidents and have higher claim frequency.
Creating total transparency into this process would be suicide for these companies - they absolutely do rate on zipcode, and poor neighborhoods absolutely have higher rates because of fraud, break ins, and generally higher claim rates. However, if you didn't rate on zipcode, then you are under-priced for these areas and you will be killed by adverse selection.
TL;DR these companies have figured out how to obfuscate filings so people don't see them blatantly charging more for XYZ, and risk public outrage.
Creating total transparency into this process would be suicide for these companies - they absolutely do rate on zipcode, and poor neighborhoods absolutely have higher rates because of fraud, break ins, and generally higher claim rates. However, if you didn't rate on zipcode, then you are under-priced for these areas and you will be killed by adverse selection.
TL;DR these companies have figured out how to obfuscate filings so people don't see them blatantly charging more for XYZ, and risk public outrage.
Insurers have to publish how they calculate rates and premiums. Every method and justification has to be approved by state regulators before they even enact them. It's one of the most transparent industries already.
I would argue that actuarial tables, equations, and formulas are not necessarily transparent for 95% of the population.
This is an astute summary of the practical effect of transparency in consumer-facing markets.
The information is there, therefore it is transparent. It's sort of on you if you are unwilling take it as a second job and/or hire a suite of professionals to help you understand.
The information is there, therefore it is transparent. It's sort of on you if you are unwilling take it as a second job and/or hire a suite of professionals to help you understand.
That's not the practical effect of transparency. It's the practical effect of living in a complicated world that must be modeled with math that most people don't know. It is on the populace to learn the math (many resources are available online), or fund people who can evaluate it on their behalf.
That is just changing the definition of transparency. Transparency means the information is readily available. The math isn't there to obfuscate the information, it is the information.
All of the laws passed by Congress as well as case laws arising from court proceedings are public. By your definition, our legal system is also very transparent. But that doesn't mean you don't need a lawyer just to navigate this voluminous corpus of information.
[deleted]
The only reason we know about this is because its a regulated market, the regulator rejected the changes, and the data is available as a public filing.
The state based system allows for a diversity in regulatory regime that wouldn't happen at the federal level.
The state based system allows for a diversity in regulatory regime that wouldn't happen at the federal level.
I dont think average folks care about transparency, they mostly care about the bottom line. I would bet that if you offered a black-box $50/month with no explanation and a transparent, easily understood $60/month people would choose the cheaper option 9 times out of 9.
The problem is that without transparency you can easily be manipulated into thinking that you are getting a good deal. Maybe in your example everybody else is getting a $30 deal but you will never know.
I am pretty young and have never bought any insurance, but am currently shopping for some.
Since I hear relatively many "insurer didn't pay" stories (often because of a weird detail), I don't have much trust in insurance and do place a lot of value on actually understanding what will be covered.
I'm still a fan of a good deal, but confidence in reliability is a pretty important part of the features, no?
Since I hear relatively many "insurer didn't pay" stories (often because of a weird detail), I don't have much trust in insurance and do place a lot of value on actually understanding what will be covered.
I'm still a fan of a good deal, but confidence in reliability is a pretty important part of the features, no?
I always read my insurance policies to see what's covered, to be honest insurance policies are very readable and fairly easy for the lay person to understand.
The only problem with total transparency is the American public is not ready to face its own driving record. A really large fraction of drivers _should_ _be_ uninsurable, including the 20% of American adults with a history of DUIs, anyone over 70, etc.
Allstate, a favorite of recent news in metro Atlanta as well. I did check with them recently when I did my yearly check on rates; they were one of the higher ones for home and auto combined. Fortunately my state (Georgia) rejected Allstate from doing what was in this article [2]
Local news station has had two recently articles about them. From finding methods to not pay damages at a cemetery caused by a car insured by them [0] to be called out for not paying bills when their insured drivers caused damage to other drivers [1]
The second story is more damning because it is law firms that end up court for suits call out Allstate for having the most issues, it also noted that ten years ago, the American Trial Lawyers Association named Allstate the worst insurance company in America. Google searches still return that note but it should be noted that lawyers tend to call out most insurance companies.
* Both have video components that may start on their own [0]https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/2-investigates-car-crashes-...
[1] https://www.wsbtv.com/news/2-investigates/are-you-in-good-ha...
[2] https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20...
Local news station has had two recently articles about them. From finding methods to not pay damages at a cemetery caused by a car insured by them [0] to be called out for not paying bills when their insured drivers caused damage to other drivers [1]
The second story is more damning because it is law firms that end up court for suits call out Allstate for having the most issues, it also noted that ten years ago, the American Trial Lawyers Association named Allstate the worst insurance company in America. Google searches still return that note but it should be noted that lawyers tend to call out most insurance companies.
* Both have video components that may start on their own [0]https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/2-investigates-car-crashes-...
[1] https://www.wsbtv.com/news/2-investigates/are-you-in-good-ha...
[2] https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/20...
I’m in Metro Atlanta and my father in law is a general contractor. His roofers and plumbers will not do business with people filing All State claims. The roofer said he used to but All State kept denying reimbursements or repayment of changes they already approved.
My father and his whole neighborhood had storm damage. All State approved all the work but still took 6+ months to pay out after the work was finished.
My father and his whole neighborhood had storm damage. All State approved all the work but still took 6+ months to pay out after the work was finished.
Interesting to see an article about this now. I work at a large insurer and we've been pissed off at AllState since they filed this garbage. It's made regulators hyper sensitive to this sort of price optimization even when we aren't even trying to do anything close to what they were doing.
I feel like the point of the article is a little bit undermined by the last section, though. A 71 year old having his rate increase "small amounts during the life of the policy" is pretty normal, and the fact that he was able to find a substantial discount elsewhere is evidence that the market is competitive.
I feel like the point of the article is a little bit undermined by the last section, though. A 71 year old having his rate increase "small amounts during the life of the policy" is pretty normal, and the fact that he was able to find a substantial discount elsewhere is evidence that the market is competitive.
>also offers a glimpse into a potential future where companies of all sorts, not just auto insurers
No, not companies of "all" sorts. Just insurance companies. Other companies are regulated by Congress as part of antitrust regulations which would prevent them from doing this kind of thing. Insurance companies, however, are not regulated by antitrust laws. Insurance is declared to be "not commerce" and therefore not answerable to antitrust laws. They are permitted to break any antitrust law they please. This is why medical insurance companies, for instance, hold national meetings every few years to decide what price they are willing to pay for medical goods and services. This is price-fixing, and it is illegal in absolutely any industry - except insurance. In insurance, they can do it publicly because there literally is no law against it. There's a law PROTECTING it. It was called the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The plan was to repeal it as part of the Affordable Care Act. It was the clause that enabled the ACA to survive the entire revision process... and was then promptly removed from the bill immediately before its passage. This is why the insurers have never really fought very hard against the ACA. If it ever gets repealed, the McCarran-Ferguson act, that is, insurance companies will fall under antitrust regulation and have to change almost every business practice they follow. They will have to compete against one another on price, compete against each other on what prices they pay, etc. It would destroy their profit margins and probably result in the majority of them going out of business quite quickly. Don't hold your breath. It's why the insurance industry spends so much on lobbying and every lobbyist for every single industry will fight its repeal. In other words, it will NEVER happen. The law has been in place since 1945.
No, not companies of "all" sorts. Just insurance companies. Other companies are regulated by Congress as part of antitrust regulations which would prevent them from doing this kind of thing. Insurance companies, however, are not regulated by antitrust laws. Insurance is declared to be "not commerce" and therefore not answerable to antitrust laws. They are permitted to break any antitrust law they please. This is why medical insurance companies, for instance, hold national meetings every few years to decide what price they are willing to pay for medical goods and services. This is price-fixing, and it is illegal in absolutely any industry - except insurance. In insurance, they can do it publicly because there literally is no law against it. There's a law PROTECTING it. It was called the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The plan was to repeal it as part of the Affordable Care Act. It was the clause that enabled the ACA to survive the entire revision process... and was then promptly removed from the bill immediately before its passage. This is why the insurers have never really fought very hard against the ACA. If it ever gets repealed, the McCarran-Ferguson act, that is, insurance companies will fall under antitrust regulation and have to change almost every business practice they follow. They will have to compete against one another on price, compete against each other on what prices they pay, etc. It would destroy their profit margins and probably result in the majority of them going out of business quite quickly. Don't hold your breath. It's why the insurance industry spends so much on lobbying and every lobbyist for every single industry will fight its repeal. In other words, it will NEVER happen. The law has been in place since 1945.
This is a terribly misleading headline.
The actual story is: they developed a radically different risk model that assigned new rates to everyone, but, in an effort to retain customers, decided to spread increases over multiple years to decrease sticker-shock cancellations.
Folks with cheap policies (which are the biggest flight risk, because are good insurance risks and every company wants them) got the increases more slowly, and high-risk folks (who were already paying more) got their increase in fewer, larger steps.
This whole article is trying to make simple business into some sort of evil scam.
The actual story is: they developed a radically different risk model that assigned new rates to everyone, but, in an effort to retain customers, decided to spread increases over multiple years to decrease sticker-shock cancellations.
Folks with cheap policies (which are the biggest flight risk, because are good insurance risks and every company wants them) got the increases more slowly, and high-risk folks (who were already paying more) got their increase in fewer, larger steps.
This whole article is trying to make simple business into some sort of evil scam.
Anecdata but I had Allstate for at least 5 years, then they tripled my rates on renewal (Massachusetts). At the time I lived in a sketchier neighborhood of Boston, but I had no claims and a 3x increase was absurd. I switched to Geico and it was 2/3 as much as Allstate was before the raise, and it's been great since. Allstate is doing something weird.
Never had Allstate, but I had a similar experience with Amica. My auto premium increased every year despite no changes to my driving record. I called and the rep explained my policy was going up because of an accident from over 3 years ago.
I immediately dropped them, switched to another company and got a much lower rate. Added bonus, my premium drops every year or so.
I immediately dropped them, switched to another company and got a much lower rate. Added bonus, my premium drops every year or so.
> paying $3,750 every six months, was instead being charged twice that, more than $7,500
How on earth does someone pay that much on INSURANCE?!?
How on earth does someone pay that much on INSURANCE?!?
Exotic cars (they don't have to be expensive exotics - just something there isn't a lot of data on) + motorcycles can easily shove that figure up there. Add speeding tickets, claims, DUI, and/or crashes - you're gonna raked over the coals.
When I was looking at buying a superbike, to get full coverage - it would be $1000/month. Clean record - but 22-23. Just liability with high deductibles was around $200-300/month. I've since become older - so it's cheaper for full coverage.
When I was looking at buying a superbike, to get full coverage - it would be $1000/month. Clean record - but 22-23. Just liability with high deductibles was around $200-300/month. I've since become older - so it's cheaper for full coverage.
Clearly, by buying insurance from AllState.
Allstate’s model seemed to determine how much a customer was willing to pay —or overpay—without defecting
Welcome to the 21st century. Comcast, Verizon, Toyota, Nabisco - the list goes on and on.
Welcome to the 21st century. Comcast, Verizon, Toyota, Nabisco - the list goes on and on.
What games do Toyota play?
Here in New Zealand, Toyota dealers no longer negotiate price with consumers, which have gotten a good reception from the public who hate negotiating with car salesmen.
Here in New Zealand, Toyota dealers no longer negotiate price with consumers, which have gotten a good reception from the public who hate negotiating with car salesmen.
Isn't this how pricing has always worked?
Of all the firms identified in TFA as charging poor customers higher fees, Princeton Review strikes me as the most evil. That single test that determines which colleges you can attend and scholarships you can get? If you're poor, you'll pay more to study for that test. Online. Yikes.
Key blurb because the title is unclear:
> In this case, Allstate’s model seemed to determine how much a customer was willing to pay —or overpay—without defecting, based on how much he or she was already forking out for car insurance.
> In this case, Allstate’s model seemed to determine how much a customer was willing to pay —or overpay—without defecting, based on how much he or she was already forking out for car insurance.
And this blurb is misleading (or more to the point, the article is misleading).
They didn’t determine how much the customer was willing to pay, they modelled how much they could change the renewing price and still retain the customer.
In general insurance, there is a large cliff for rate change, where if you change the price higher or lower by more than a certain percentage (different in each case, and for different products) you are much less likely to retain the policy.
Actuarially you have a ‘technical price’ which is the real cost of insurance, and this includes things like acquisition cost and other operating costs, in addition to the risk costs.
When you update your risk model you often have policies that jump in price (if rated as ‘new business’, on technical price) so modelling the retention of the entire portfolio is extremely important. Your price elasticity is in part based on what percentage of the renewing policies you expect to retain with your new rates.
Implementing a ‘capping and cupping’ strategy to limit the amount of rate change delivered in a single year is extremely common, and allows this estimate of retention to be more accurate.
You need policies to eventually get to the technical price (which for large policies, like a fleet of cars, is literally based on prior claims experience) but you also need to sell and retain policies. Capping the amount of rate change applied in one year is a compromise between the two.
They didn’t determine how much the customer was willing to pay, they modelled how much they could change the renewing price and still retain the customer.
In general insurance, there is a large cliff for rate change, where if you change the price higher or lower by more than a certain percentage (different in each case, and for different products) you are much less likely to retain the policy.
Actuarially you have a ‘technical price’ which is the real cost of insurance, and this includes things like acquisition cost and other operating costs, in addition to the risk costs.
When you update your risk model you often have policies that jump in price (if rated as ‘new business’, on technical price) so modelling the retention of the entire portfolio is extremely important. Your price elasticity is in part based on what percentage of the renewing policies you expect to retain with your new rates.
Implementing a ‘capping and cupping’ strategy to limit the amount of rate change delivered in a single year is extremely common, and allows this estimate of retention to be more accurate.
You need policies to eventually get to the technical price (which for large policies, like a fleet of cars, is literally based on prior claims experience) but you also need to sell and retain policies. Capping the amount of rate change applied in one year is a compromise between the two.
Why is the government in the business of disapproving prices in the first place?
Almost all state governments made it so that you can't drive a car unless you have insurance.
The reason they did this is so that if you hit someone and cause physical injury to them or to their property, it's possible to pay them for the damage you did to them.
The government has decided that it is a good idea to make sure that people generally have a way of getting money from people that have caused accidents. We've also decided that it's in our collective best interest to allow people that don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash on hand to be able to drive to the supermarket. However, because of these two conflicting goals, we need a third party that can pay in these cases.
Since it's a legal requirement to give money to a third-party when someone wants to drive, state governments have also determined that it's in our collective best interest to not allow for bad behavior by insurers in overcharging drivers for things not directly related to risk.
The reason for this is that making car insurance generally unaffordable to classes of people tends to exacerbate divisions in society, at least in the United States.
Further, members of minority communities do vote in elections, and will generally not support candidates whose position on insurance companies engaging in price gouging is "the free market will figure it out, sorry you can't afford insurance."
Finally, it cannot be taken for granted that companies always discriminate fairly when there are no laws to prevent them from not doing so. The example we see here is evidence of this. If Allstate is making pricing decisions not based on risk but based on willingness to shop, then that means that people are being unfairly overcharged; it just so happens that it's not as immediately offensive to our morals when it's "willingness to shop" vs. "being a member of a historically discriminated group of people".
The reason they did this is so that if you hit someone and cause physical injury to them or to their property, it's possible to pay them for the damage you did to them.
The government has decided that it is a good idea to make sure that people generally have a way of getting money from people that have caused accidents. We've also decided that it's in our collective best interest to allow people that don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash on hand to be able to drive to the supermarket. However, because of these two conflicting goals, we need a third party that can pay in these cases.
Since it's a legal requirement to give money to a third-party when someone wants to drive, state governments have also determined that it's in our collective best interest to not allow for bad behavior by insurers in overcharging drivers for things not directly related to risk.
The reason for this is that making car insurance generally unaffordable to classes of people tends to exacerbate divisions in society, at least in the United States.
Further, members of minority communities do vote in elections, and will generally not support candidates whose position on insurance companies engaging in price gouging is "the free market will figure it out, sorry you can't afford insurance."
Finally, it cannot be taken for granted that companies always discriminate fairly when there are no laws to prevent them from not doing so. The example we see here is evidence of this. If Allstate is making pricing decisions not based on risk but based on willingness to shop, then that means that people are being unfairly overcharged; it just so happens that it's not as immediately offensive to our morals when it's "willingness to shop" vs. "being a member of a historically discriminated group of people".
1. I'm perfectly fine with mandatory liability insurance. Requiring assurance that someone can pay for any damage they do before granting them access to our roads is fine.
2. "state governments have also determined that it's in our collective best interest to not allow for bad behavior by insurers in overcharging drivers for things not directly related to risk." This doesn't follow. You need to argue for a market failure of some sort to justify regulation. Seatbelts are mandatory, but it doesn't follow from there that the government must regulate the pricing structure of seatbelt manufacturers.
3. "The reason for this is that making car insurance generally unaffordable to classes of people tends to exacerbate divisions in society, at least in the United States." This is properly handled with subsidies, not mandates, as I already mentioned in other comments.
4. "Finally, it cannot be taken for granted that companies always discriminate fairly when there are no laws to prevent them from not doing so."
We don't need to take that for granted. The only relevant question is whether there is competition. If there's a monopoly, perhaps created by onerous government regulations, then there might not be sufficient competition. Again, you need to argue for a market failure, which you have not.
2. "state governments have also determined that it's in our collective best interest to not allow for bad behavior by insurers in overcharging drivers for things not directly related to risk." This doesn't follow. You need to argue for a market failure of some sort to justify regulation. Seatbelts are mandatory, but it doesn't follow from there that the government must regulate the pricing structure of seatbelt manufacturers.
3. "The reason for this is that making car insurance generally unaffordable to classes of people tends to exacerbate divisions in society, at least in the United States." This is properly handled with subsidies, not mandates, as I already mentioned in other comments.
4. "Finally, it cannot be taken for granted that companies always discriminate fairly when there are no laws to prevent them from not doing so."
We don't need to take that for granted. The only relevant question is whether there is competition. If there's a monopoly, perhaps created by onerous government regulations, then there might not be sufficient competition. Again, you need to argue for a market failure, which you have not.
You're acting like the parent you're responding to was making an argument for something, instead of describing the current reality.
Perhaps. My "why are states in that business" was meant as a moral question, not a factual question.
[deleted]
Gotcha -- so it wasn't even trying to answer the prompt, and was just block of text that doesn't contribute to the discussion. Flagging, then. (not really, just saying ... keep your eye on the ball, commenters)
Hold on.
Here is the literal word for word question that I replied to:
"Why is the government in the business of disapproving prices in the first place?"
My answer was long winded and did not directly answer that question, but requires a person to come to the point themselves. Here's my answer: The government is in the business of disapproving prices because it requires people to purchase a product in order to engage in behavior that we feel is valuable, and the "government" (effectively, all of us) have decided that prices should be correlated with risk, and not discriminate on historically discriminated groups of people.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only answers to a rhetorical question should be arguing in favor of a position rather than explaining the logic behind a position?
Here is the literal word for word question that I replied to:
"Why is the government in the business of disapproving prices in the first place?"
My answer was long winded and did not directly answer that question, but requires a person to come to the point themselves. Here's my answer: The government is in the business of disapproving prices because it requires people to purchase a product in order to engage in behavior that we feel is valuable, and the "government" (effectively, all of us) have decided that prices should be correlated with risk, and not discriminate on historically discriminated groups of people.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only answers to a rhetorical question should be arguing in favor of a position rather than explaining the logic behind a position?
TBH, I don't think it was that, it's just ... a lot of the answer, despite its thoroughness, came off to me as unproductive and (for lack of a better term) condescending and unserious. The answer focused on a bunch of uncontroversial points (the questioner's later comments confirmed this, that s/he wasn't some no-gov extremist), then quickly shifted over to assuming away all the controversial stuff. That doesn't feel like it's a real attempt to untangle the issue the questioner was asking about.
At the same time, most of what you said was still relevant and true, and my disagreement does amount to an objection to your logical jumps, so it's probably an unfairly high bar I'm setting here.
With that said, I think, to address the core confusion, and contribute to the discussion, you'd need to answer "why insurance specifically"?
Yes, people insuring dangerous things is good. Yes, everyone (with a few caveats) needs to buy insurance. Yes, non-discrimination is good.
None of that gets you to "therefore, we obviously need a commission to set rates", which I think prompted the question.
As (I think) the questioner notes, everyone needs to buy food. Where's the commission that approves increases in tomato prices? I'm sure some stores would like to overcharge minority groups, but competition, and the threat of lawsuits, tends to take care of that.
A responsive (not necessarily correct) answer would look more like:
"There can't be meaningful competition in this arena, and cost of coverage is easy enough to estimate, so we've gone with a model of fixed prices."
Competition in the insurance market is pretty intense, though, so that wouldn't be a satisfying explanation.
At the same time, most of what you said was still relevant and true, and my disagreement does amount to an objection to your logical jumps, so it's probably an unfairly high bar I'm setting here.
With that said, I think, to address the core confusion, and contribute to the discussion, you'd need to answer "why insurance specifically"?
Yes, people insuring dangerous things is good. Yes, everyone (with a few caveats) needs to buy insurance. Yes, non-discrimination is good.
None of that gets you to "therefore, we obviously need a commission to set rates", which I think prompted the question.
As (I think) the questioner notes, everyone needs to buy food. Where's the commission that approves increases in tomato prices? I'm sure some stores would like to overcharge minority groups, but competition, and the threat of lawsuits, tends to take care of that.
A responsive (not necessarily correct) answer would look more like:
"There can't be meaningful competition in this arena, and cost of coverage is easy enough to estimate, so we've gone with a model of fixed prices."
Competition in the insurance market is pretty intense, though, so that wouldn't be a satisfying explanation.
You deleted your other response after I had already written a long response, so I'm going to reply here instead.
<Deleted comment:>
I do not believe it is a valuable use of my time to write, nor is it a valuable use of your time to read an argument in favor of the concept of a representative democracy, which is ultimately what an answer to "Why is the government in the business of disapproving prices in the first place?" would entail. The morals in play are these: 1. Do we consider the supposed "right" of a corporation to discriminate on the basis of race in pricing to supersede the right of a driver to affordable insurance?
2. Does a government have the right to require people to buy insurance?
3. Is the action of the "free market" in correcting unfair price discrimination so robust that government intervention is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive?
4. Is collectively subsidizing bad risks something that should be done explicitly (through government subsidies taken from taxation) or implicitly (through pricing that forces the cheapest insureds to pay a little more and the most expensive insureds to pay a little less)?
Answering these questions is an enormous waste of time if you're a libertarian or an anarchist. Asking a rhetorical question and expecting to get a moral justification for why "a government does a thing" is arguing in bad faith if you don't straight up say "Why is the government in the business of rejecting prices? Also, I don't think the government should reject prices because the free market will figure it out. I am not going to change my mind on this."
</Deleted comment>
My reply:
1. Entirely irrelevant. Corporations have no rights. Neither does anyone have a right to cheap services. It may be a good public policy goal for certain services to be more affordable than the market clearing price - I believe this should be addressed via subsidies absent a strong market failure argument.
2. I already agreed with this. Although I wouldn't frame any of this as a "right", the question is if it's a good idea for the government to do so. The government has a "right" to pay people to dig ditches and then refill them, but it would be a bad idea.
3. The burden of proof should be on the person arguing for additional regulations. I reject the attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm asking for the case for regulation; "you can't conclusively prove that it's harmful" is not a positive case for regulation.
4. This is a legitimate question. You've made no arguments on this question so far, but I will reply to any arguments you may make on this issue in good faith. My prior is that explicit subsidies are likelier to be more efficient.
I'm not a libertarian or an anarchist. I'm just skeptical of government action and expect strong justifications for regulations. It's clear that many regulations are harmful and that some are beneficial, and it's also clear that many lawmakers or regulators have not thought all that deeply about what the best system of regulation is. Being skeptical and expecting justification before something like price controls is hardly bad faith.
Finally, "I think this particular thing the government does is harmful" is a very different claim than "I don't believe in representative democracy". Let's stipulate that representative democracy is better than any realistic alternative. That still doesn't tell us whether any particular action is good.
P.S. I tend to favor regulations that involve higher transparency, as opposed to banning actions completely, as there are strong economic benefits to information. I also like pigovian taxes on negative externalities. Don't assume that everyone you meet is the most extreme strawman that shares those views.
<Deleted comment:>
I do not believe it is a valuable use of my time to write, nor is it a valuable use of your time to read an argument in favor of the concept of a representative democracy, which is ultimately what an answer to "Why is the government in the business of disapproving prices in the first place?" would entail. The morals in play are these: 1. Do we consider the supposed "right" of a corporation to discriminate on the basis of race in pricing to supersede the right of a driver to affordable insurance?
2. Does a government have the right to require people to buy insurance?
3. Is the action of the "free market" in correcting unfair price discrimination so robust that government intervention is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive?
4. Is collectively subsidizing bad risks something that should be done explicitly (through government subsidies taken from taxation) or implicitly (through pricing that forces the cheapest insureds to pay a little more and the most expensive insureds to pay a little less)?
Answering these questions is an enormous waste of time if you're a libertarian or an anarchist. Asking a rhetorical question and expecting to get a moral justification for why "a government does a thing" is arguing in bad faith if you don't straight up say "Why is the government in the business of rejecting prices? Also, I don't think the government should reject prices because the free market will figure it out. I am not going to change my mind on this."
</Deleted comment>
My reply:
1. Entirely irrelevant. Corporations have no rights. Neither does anyone have a right to cheap services. It may be a good public policy goal for certain services to be more affordable than the market clearing price - I believe this should be addressed via subsidies absent a strong market failure argument.
2. I already agreed with this. Although I wouldn't frame any of this as a "right", the question is if it's a good idea for the government to do so. The government has a "right" to pay people to dig ditches and then refill them, but it would be a bad idea.
3. The burden of proof should be on the person arguing for additional regulations. I reject the attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm asking for the case for regulation; "you can't conclusively prove that it's harmful" is not a positive case for regulation.
4. This is a legitimate question. You've made no arguments on this question so far, but I will reply to any arguments you may make on this issue in good faith. My prior is that explicit subsidies are likelier to be more efficient.
I'm not a libertarian or an anarchist. I'm just skeptical of government action and expect strong justifications for regulations. It's clear that many regulations are harmful and that some are beneficial, and it's also clear that many lawmakers or regulators have not thought all that deeply about what the best system of regulation is. Being skeptical and expecting justification before something like price controls is hardly bad faith.
Finally, "I think this particular thing the government does is harmful" is a very different claim than "I don't believe in representative democracy". Let's stipulate that representative democracy is better than any realistic alternative. That still doesn't tell us whether any particular action is good.
P.S. I tend to favor regulations that involve higher transparency, as opposed to banning actions completely, as there are strong economic benefits to information. I also like pigovian taxes on negative externalities. Don't assume that everyone you meet is the most extreme strawman that shares those views.
A simple minimum insurance (liability only) is around $150/y almost regardless of vehicle here while a full insurance (theft, damage, ...) is 10x that and obviously can be a lot more expensive than that if the car is expensive.
I wouldn’t even shop around if only buying the liability insurance because it costs like 2 tanks of gas anyway.
I wouldn’t even shop around if only buying the liability insurance because it costs like 2 tanks of gas anyway.
See how much young drivers on a 1 million/1 million liability policy cost. Always shop around.
The minimum insurance (the one required by law in order to drive) only insures damages on the other party (injury and property). Basically the repair of the other vehicle or the fence I mow down.
What makes it cheaper than in the US (I assume) is that loss of income, healthcare costs is assumed to be taken care of by other (public) insurance, so that's not my liability if I crash into you. Put another way: car insurers can rely on the fact that everyone has other expensive insurance already. I already paid for the other partys ambulance through my taxes - I don't need to do it on my car insurance.
To take an extreme example: if I enter that I want a BMW M3 and I'm 22, the cost would likely be north of $700 per year, but it could be +/- 50% depending on whether it's in a city or rural area.
But for me (40+) the cost would be maybe up or down 10% from a couple of of hundred (say) so I wouldn't really be interested in shopping around. The reason is I shop around for my other insurance, where I have my nice call fully insured. That's a lot more expensive (Say $1000-$1500 per year and varies wildly). I'm likely to just insure my crap car with minimum insurance at a couple of hundred bucks at the same insurance company that gave the best quote for the expensive insurance of the other car. So I do shop around for insurance. Just not when I need only the minimum one. It's not worth the effort to save under $100/year to have multiple insurance companies.
What makes it cheaper than in the US (I assume) is that loss of income, healthcare costs is assumed to be taken care of by other (public) insurance, so that's not my liability if I crash into you. Put another way: car insurers can rely on the fact that everyone has other expensive insurance already. I already paid for the other partys ambulance through my taxes - I don't need to do it on my car insurance.
To take an extreme example: if I enter that I want a BMW M3 and I'm 22, the cost would likely be north of $700 per year, but it could be +/- 50% depending on whether it's in a city or rural area.
But for me (40+) the cost would be maybe up or down 10% from a couple of of hundred (say) so I wouldn't really be interested in shopping around. The reason is I shop around for my other insurance, where I have my nice call fully insured. That's a lot more expensive (Say $1000-$1500 per year and varies wildly). I'm likely to just insure my crap car with minimum insurance at a couple of hundred bucks at the same insurance company that gave the best quote for the expensive insurance of the other car. So I do shop around for insurance. Just not when I need only the minimum one. It's not worth the effort to save under $100/year to have multiple insurance companies.
The government should be in the business of fighting predatory pricing. Based on the other comments that people have a very hard time figuring out how much they would be paying(significant legal jargon obfuscation) it seems like people are being "forced"(as in no alternative) into contracts where they don't have a full understanding of what they are signing/paying. That seems pretty predatory to me
Predatory pricing is pricing too low so competition is forced out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
That's not alleged here at all. "People have a very hard time figuring out how much they would be paying" no, what's being said is people are having a hard time reading the documents submitted to the regulator. If you want to know how much you'll pay, just get a quote from the insurer directly.
That's not alleged here at all. "People have a very hard time figuring out how much they would be paying" no, what's being said is people are having a hard time reading the documents submitted to the regulator. If you want to know how much you'll pay, just get a quote from the insurer directly.
would you want an insurance company to be able to price your policy on socially discriminatory characteristics without regulation to stop it? or possibly worse, without anyone even knowing?
If those characteristics are higher risk, then they should be priced higher. And if they aren't higher risk, then a company using them to discriminate will be outcompeted by a company that is not.
You realize that, say, age is a protected class and yet an obvious risk factor, right? Do you think all ages should have the same rates for car insurance?
Mandating everyone pay the same price when their risks are different distorts incentives and makes us all worse off on average. Some may benefit in the short term by being subsidized by others, sure. Even if subsidies were socially desirable, price regulation is one of the least efficient ways to implement such subsidies. If the concern is that some people can't afford insurance because they're higher risk, then you can have subsidies targeted to them that pay for their insurance. That's far better than forcing an insurance company to take a loss on them.
You realize that, say, age is a protected class and yet an obvious risk factor, right? Do you think all ages should have the same rates for car insurance?
Mandating everyone pay the same price when their risks are different distorts incentives and makes us all worse off on average. Some may benefit in the short term by being subsidized by others, sure. Even if subsidies were socially desirable, price regulation is one of the least efficient ways to implement such subsidies. If the concern is that some people can't afford insurance because they're higher risk, then you can have subsidies targeted to them that pay for their insurance. That's far better than forcing an insurance company to take a loss on them.
is there an insurer with better rates than geico for young and safe driver with zero accident record and perhaps 1 or 2 speeding tickets ? [in the southeast region]
I found Progressive to be half the cost of Geico.
> [We] comply with state laws and regulations
Said every company that ever failed to comply with state laws and regulations
Said every company that ever failed to comply with state laws and regulations
how long before others catch on. Imagine your healthcare provider sending you even more outrageous bills depending upon 'the list'.
It’s more likely individual doctors will bill you something large and hope your insurance pays for it.
Maybe you needed some super expensive expensive exam (when you didn’t).
Maybe you needed some super expensive expensive exam (when you didn’t).
Healthcare insurance can't, its not legal.
Beautiful commercial material for Allstate competitors and you don't even have to lie or deceive.
A black husband and wife sit by a dinner table:
- Honey, did you see that article on Allstate? I think we may be overpaying...
- Why?
- Well, it says here that Allstate plans to hike prices for the people who pay the most even 20% more, and they call them... suckers.
- What?
- It also says that they plan that for people living in "nonwhite" communities...
- That's us!
- Yeah... who would knew a gecko would be right? We need to call them now, maybe we save 15% or more on car insurance as well...
And then at the closure message: Allstate admits to hiking prices for people who pay the most and calls them suckers. Don't be a sucker, get Geico insurance now!
A black husband and wife sit by a dinner table:
- Honey, did you see that article on Allstate? I think we may be overpaying...
- Why?
- Well, it says here that Allstate plans to hike prices for the people who pay the most even 20% more, and they call them... suckers.
- What?
- It also says that they plan that for people living in "nonwhite" communities...
- That's us!
- Yeah... who would knew a gecko would be right? We need to call them now, maybe we save 15% or more on car insurance as well...
And then at the closure message: Allstate admits to hiking prices for people who pay the most and calls them suckers. Don't be a sucker, get Geico insurance now!
So I made the claim. Then made 2 more claims through him that year (major road construction meant lots of debris on the highway I commuted on).
And then I got my premium notice and they increased my premium by 5X (something like $300 every 6 months to $1500) due my claim history -- I had no accidents, just $120 in window repair claims.
I immediately switched insurance companies and never went back. It was a good lesson for me -- don't use insurance if you can avoid it. So now I run $1000 decuctables when I can since I really don't want to make an insurance claim unless it's catastrophic.