DAILY NEWS Jan 30, 2013 11:05 AM - 3 comments

Use of rating factors causing "safe" drivers in U.S. to pay more: consumer group

TEXT SIZE bigger text smaller text
2013-01-30

A 12-city examination involving the five largest auto insurers in the United States indicates that use of rating factors results in insurers frequently charging higher premiums to “safe” drivers than to those who have had an at-fault accident within the last three years, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) reports.

Wallet

In two-thirds of the 60 cases studied, large auto insurers quoted higher premiums to “good drivers” than to those responsible for an accident, notes the CFA’s third report on auto insurance premiums charged by the largest auto insurers, released Jan. 28. The higher prices mainly reflect insurer use of rating factors such as education and occupation, argues the CFA, established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy and education.

In more than three-fifths of the cases with these higher premiums, the CFA statement notes, the premium quoted the safe driver exceeded that of the unsafe driver by at least 25%.

“State insurance regulators should require auto insurers to explain why they believe factors such as education and income are better predictors of losses than are at-fault accidents,” charges J. Robert Hunter, CFA’s director of insurance, formerly the insurance commissioner in Texas.

CFA priced policies in 12 cities – Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Tampa, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, Denver, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Seattle – using the websites of the five largest auto insurers in the U.S., namely State Farm, Allstate, GEICO, Farmers and Progressive. Together, notes the CFA, those insurers have more than half of the private auto insurance market.

The federation compared premiums quoted to two 30-year-old women who each had driven for 10 years, lived on the same street in the same middle-income zip code, and sought minimum liability coverage required by the state in question. The two women, however, did differ: one was a single receptionist with a high school education who rents, has been without insurance coverage 45 days and has never had an accident or moving violation; the other is a married executive with a Masters degree who owns a home, has had continuous insurance coverage, and has had an at-fault accident with $800 of damage within the past three years.

In 35 of the 60 cases, the CFA reports the insurers either quoted annual premiums in excess of $1,000 or declined to quote a price. In only four cases did insurers quote an annual premium of less than $500, the federation adds.

The analysis shows not all insurers were the same. In every case, Farmers, GEICO and Progressive quoted the safe driver a higher premium than the driver causing an accident, the CFA statement notes. (In several cases, companies refused a quote to the good driver, but gave one to the accident-causer.)

A chart from CFA indicates the following: Allstate’s annual premiums for the no-accident driver ranged from $850 in St. Louis ($832 in Los Angeles, which has state-run insurance) to $3,292 in Baltimore, while Progressive’s annual premiums ranged from $864 in Cleveland ($790 in Los Angeles) to $1,928 in Baltimore, and State Farm’s annual premium ranged from $310 in Chicago to $1,792 in Tampa.

In all 12 cities, State Farm charged the good driver less. Rates quoted in all cities were either the lowest (six cities) or the second lowest (six cities), the CFA adds.

“With nearly one-quarter of the private passenger auto insurance business, State Farm dominates the market. If they can be a successful company without using highly discriminatory factors, other large companies should be able to do so as well,” Hunter contends.



Horizontal ruler

Reader Comments

Most recent firstOldest first

R Siroishka

I feel the point is this and the study being done by an actuary is even better. ( Maybe he knows something you don't from his past jobs ? )

The majority of insurers charged more to a Lady who has probably worked longer in her career and is waiting to replace her car because the last one was destroyed in some type of storm than one with an accident !!
Come on it was a 45 days lapse.

Why is the study flawed ?
Because those are the rules put in place by a select few ?

Maybe the VP of sales from Equifax convinced the President of the insurance company his tools were more accurate by saying they are but I can't show you the secret formula ?

Like the 4th paragraph says, " Insurers should explain why they charged more, etc ! "

When you stop asking questions for the people you sell too is when you may as well let them go to an ATM machine to buy insurance.

Well done Statefarm on a National rate structure that measurers on facts not secrets.

The big coincidence here is that like the study above, 66% of the respondents here so far agree with something they have no proof on - Funny how that works ?

Posted January 31, 2013 10:33 AM


Mark Kulda

The CFA's study is fatally flawed because it allowed for more variables between the two woman than just education and income. Notably the lower income woman was not insured for 45 days which is a high risk factor. The study should have had that fact be the same for both. In fact the data sets for both women should have been EXACTLY the same except for one factor like income or education, then you could make the claim the CFA is making. And, sadly, Bob Hunter is a former actuary and KNOWS this. So clearly this was just an attempt to get publicity using flawed data to try to attack the insurance industry.
In fact if you look into the survey they used (and most reporters won't spend the intellectual capital to do so), you'll see that in 30 cases the executive got a better rate. But not always. In a full 20 cases the receptionist got a better deal. So how do you say that is improperly discriminatory?
What is good about the CFA's press release is it calls attention to the fact that it is a very wise consumer tip to ALWAYS shop your insurance coverage at each renewal because the market is very competitive.

Posted January 30, 2013 12:36 PM


michael thorp

The lapse in coverage was a huge differing fact between the two, what you were really measuring was the risk of being long term uninsured verses having had an at fault accident. Poorly controled or contrived study.

Posted January 30, 2013 12:31 PM


FirstPrevNextLast
Horizontal Ruler

Post A Comment

Disclaimer
Note: By submitting your comments you acknowledge that Canadian Underwriter has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that due to the volume of e-mails we receive, not all comments will be published and those that are published will not be edited. However, all will be carefully read, considered and appreciated.

Your Name (this will appear with your post) *

Email Address (will not be published) *

Comments *



* mandatory fields