Auto Insurance??

[Awwhellnaw]

Coverage renews 9/1. When I made the change 5 months ago, it was already absurd but I had to make the carrier switch because the renewal on the homeowners was so ridiculous. Saved several hundred dollars in the end.

Existing policy period was ~$830. Renewal is ~$930. Both vehicles over 12 years old, no claims, no tickets.

I understand insurance (for the most part). It’s supposed to boil down to claims vs. premium. How does underwriting justify an increase of this magnitude when the assets covered have diminished in value and ZERO dollars have been paid out in claims?

Can someone explain to me what the hell is going on and if you’ve had a similar experience?

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Wait until you have driving age kids. It's insane. Unfortunately, my wife and two of three kids have recent accidents.

 

[Wesson Bulldog]

I SOLD an older car in January bc I have a demo now through the dealership. That put 3 drivers for two cars. One is my son who is 20, the other my wife. No citations, no accidents ever. State farm increased the premium $1200/ year!

 

[RocketDawg]

Coverage renews 9/1. When I made the change 5 months ago, it was already absurd but I had to make the carrier switch because the renewal on the homeowners was so ridiculous. Saved several hundred dollars in the end.

Existing policy period was ~$830. Renewal is ~$930. Both vehicles over 12 years old, no claims, no tickets.

I understand insurance (for the most part). It’s supposed to boil down to claims vs. premium. How does underwriting justify an increase of this magnitude when the assets covered have diminished in value and ZERO dollars have been paid out in claims?

Can someone explain to me what the hell is going on and if you’ve had a similar experience?

With 12 year old vehicles, you're probably just talking about liability insurance. Perhaps liability could logically increase with an older vehicle since they could ,on average, be more dangerous to others than a newer one.

 

[soccerdad]

The cost of repairs has gone up 20% in 12 months ck a body shop estimate. They are paying more for help and parts. So if you hit someone the costs are higher. The other is social inflation, trying to sue for anything and jury awarding $5, 600,000 like it’s nothing. Did you see the Tesla judgement on self driving 400 million. Costs in Louisiana are 60% higher than here due to judgements. Attorneys have driven this instead of just getting your car fixed there are medical issues with 70% now 15 years ago less than 50%. I’m in the business so it’s tough on insureds. Mine is up $600 in 2 years.

 

[johnson86-1]

Coverage renews 9/1. When I made the change 5 months ago, it was already absurd but I had to make the carrier switch because the renewal on the homeowners was so ridiculous. Saved several hundred dollars in the end.

Existing policy period was ~$830. Renewal is ~$930. Both vehicles over 12 years old, no claims, no tickets.

I understand insurance (for the most part). It’s supposed to boil down to claims vs. premium. How does underwriting justify an increase of this magnitude when the assets covered have diminished in value and ZERO dollars have been paid out in claims?

Can someone explain to me what the hell is going on and if you’ve had a similar experience?

This certainly isn't all of it, but small claims are a lot more expensive now because of all the extra electronics. Pretty much any bump, no matter how otherwise minor, is going to require the replacement of some cameras and/or sensors.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

The cost of repairs has gone up 20% in 12 months ck a body shop estimate. They are paying more for help and parts. So if you hit someone the costs are higher. The other is social inflation, trying to sue for anything and jury awarding $5, 600,000 like it’s nothing. Did you see the Tesla judgement on self driving 400 million. Costs in Louisiana are 60% higher than here due to judgements. Attorneys have driven this instead of just getting your car fixed there are medical issues with 70% now 15 years ago less than 50%. I’m in the business so it’s tough on insureds. Mine is up $600 in 2 years.

Mississippi has a cap on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages of $1,000,000, and has the collateral source rule for economic damages paid by a 3rd party (meaning any bills paid by medical insurance gets deducted from verdict). And MS had one of the most sweeping tort reform packages passed in 2004, promising that it would dramatically lower insurance costs and make the state "open for business" because it would be a much friendlier environment for businesses and firms. By any measure, that has not materialized.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Mississippi has a cap on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages of $1,000,000, and has the collateral source rule for economic damages paid by a 3rd party (meaning any bills paid by medical insurance gets deducted from verdict). And MS had one of the most sweeping tort reform packages passed in 2004, promising that it would dramatically lower insurance costs and make the state "open for business" because it would be a much friendlier environment for businesses and firms. By any measure, that has not materialized.

Remember the old Phen Phen lawsuits?

 

[dudehead]

Mississippi has a cap on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages of $1,000,000, and has the collateral source rule for economic damages paid by a 3rd party (meaning any bills paid by medical insurance gets deducted from verdict). And MS had one of the most sweeping tort reform packages passed in 2004, promising that it would dramatically lower insurance costs and make the state "open for business" because it would be a much friendlier environment for businesses and firms. By any measure, that has not materialized.

I worked for the MS Law Research Institute back in the mid 1980s while in law school. The data was clear then that tort reform would have limited impact on insurance rates over the long term and we so advised the MS legislature through our reports. Our experience as reflected in your comment has shown that to be true. So, not only has INSCOs cost of doing business decreased via tort reform's cap on the amount of verdicts and settlement in PI cases, but they have been able to continue to increase premiums over the last 35 years. Win/Win for INSCO profits. Bottom line: it pays to be able to buy the law you seek.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

Remember the old Phen Phen lawsuits?

I sure do. IIRC, I don't think that MS was the only state with Fen-Phen litigation. What of it? Did Mississippi see an appreciable gain in businesses that were exposed to risk from Fen-Phen litigation?

 

[aTotal360]

I'm going through the same crap. Against my better judgment, I've installed an app that monitors my driving for 6 months. Supposedly it *can* lower my deductible considerably. I bet it 17s me...

 

[dorndawg]

I'm going through the same crap. Against my better judgment, I've installed an app that monitors my driving for 6 months. Supposedly it *can* lower my deductible considerably. I bet it 17s me...

The insurance company is looking out for you, dawg

 

[TaleofTwoDogs]

"I understand insurance (for the most part). It’s supposed to boil down to claims vs. premium. How does underwriting justify an increase of this magnitude when the assets covered have diminished in value and ZERO dollars have been paid out in claims?"

Your claims history is only part of the equation that insurance companies use to determine premiums. More importantly is the losses sustained by the "pool" of claims (all claims combined in the insured class). If premiums were based strictly on your own claims (or lack of) then most drivers would see no increases or really high increases. I don't think there is such a thing as no increases.

 

[johnson86-1]

Mississippi has a cap on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages of $1,000,000, and has the collateral source rule for economic damages paid by a 3rd party (meaning any bills paid by medical insurance gets deducted from verdict). And MS had one of the most sweeping tort reform packages passed in 2004, promising that it would dramatically lower insurance costs and make the state "open for business" because it would be a much friendlier environment for businesses and firms. By any measure, that has not materialized.

That is going to be news to a lot of people in Mississippi that interpret the collateral source rule as exactly the opposite of what you state. Not only is the verdict not reduced by payments by medical insurers, those medical insurers typically assert a lien against any judgment in favor of their insured.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

Coverage renews 9/1. When I made the change 5 months ago, it was already absurd but I had to make the carrier switch because the renewal on the homeowners was so ridiculous. Saved several hundred dollars in the end.

Existing policy period was ~$830. Renewal is ~$930. Both vehicles over 12 years old, no claims, no tickets.

I understand insurance (for the most part). It’s supposed to boil down to claims vs. premium. How does underwriting justify an increase of this magnitude when the assets covered have diminished in value and ZERO dollars have been paid out in claims?

Can someone explain to me what the hell is going on and if you’ve had a similar experience?

As for an actual response, I think the immediate rationale for the increased premium is the increase in cost of repairs. Not saying that I think that's the full reason, but it's one of a handful they use when premiums rise.

My advice is to shop your premium every renewal period, or at least every year. The change in premiums can be dramatic from company to company if you catch them at the right time, and they are constantly reconfiguring their models. We have a teen on our policy and switched to State Farm, and it was $1,300 cheaper over 6 months. They are a terrible company, but at least they'll be terrible to somebody else .

 

[patdog]

I'm going through the same crap. Against my better judgment, I've installed an app that monitors my driving for 6 months. Supposedly it *can* lower my deductible considerably. I bet it 17s me...

Yeah, that app isn’t there to “lower your rate.” It’s there to jack it up or cancel you completely and blame you for it.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

That is going to be news to a lot of people in Mississippi that interpret the collateral source rule as exactly the opposite of what you state. Not only is the verdict not reduced by payments by medical insurers, those medical insurers typically assert a lien against any judgment in favor of their insured.

I oversimplified this because it's complicated and I didn't want to get the dreaded "too long, won't read". I know you're more likely to pick up on nuance, so more fully-

Third parties who pay for damages are entitled to subrogation; that's the lien you're referring to. Most significant of these are medical providers and insurers. If an injury plaintiff gets treatment or uses insurance and makes a 3rd party claim, the subrogee is entitled to every $ they pay (common fund usually applies, so they end up getting ~50-70% instead of 100%).

Here's the key- juries do not get to hear or review evidence about subrogation at trial. They also generally do not get evidence of liability insurance at trial. These things are inadmissible given extraordinary circumstances (like the defendant opening the door by raising the issue indpedently).

So, the collateral source rule does say that a jury cannot reduce a verdict by payments by insurance, but it's because the court does not want the jury having to guess as to the accurate amount of economic damages claimed by the plaintiff where the plaintiff will be paying the subrogation to the 3rd party. The collateral source is to avoid a windfall by either the plaintiff or the liability insurer standing in the shoes of the defendant.

Example-
Injured driver has $25,000 in medical treatment. His insurer BCBS pays $20,000 of that. He makes a claim against tortfeasor, and BCBS asserts its contractual right of subrogation. Settlement cannot be reached and goes to trial. Jury gets evidence of $25,000 for medical treatment only and an instruction is issued to the jury that no evidence of a collateral source can be used to reduce a verdict to plaintiff because that is already dealt with contractually. Jury awards $50,000.00. BCBS gets its $20,000 from verdict. Plaintiff gets the $30,000.

 

[skip dog]

being self employed, and healthy, I probably have somewhat of the same gripe with health insurance.......problem is Actuaries and the fact that you are not seen as a individual rather a component of a large segment of the population and therefor just a statistic that.....and you are just lumped into a category that at this age, with this debt to income ratio, in this county with this population you are X% likely to have this claim

it is beyond frustrating to have your/my rates affected by things out of our control........such as living inside the city limits of Jackson and driving a certain type vehicle.

I have not had a single claim in over 30 years, nor a ticket in 35+ years, and drive a 15 year old vehicle.

Insurance industry need to get dialed back a bit, and conversely, some of these fools need to learn to act right, and frankly, the state needs to find a way to enforce the whole non insured motorists thing

**my 2 cents

 

[RocketDawg]

The cost of repairs has gone up 20% in 12 months ck a body shop estimate. They are paying more for help and parts. So if you hit someone the costs are higher. The other is social inflation, trying to sue for anything and jury awarding $5, 600,000 like it’s nothing. Did you see the Tesla judgement on self driving 400 million. Costs in Louisiana are 60% higher than here due to judgements. Attorneys have driven this instead of just getting your car fixed there are medical issues with 70% now 15 years ago less than 50%. I’m in the business so it’s tough on insureds. Mine is up $600 in 2 years.

Recent awarded settlements are ridiculous. The Tesla one is absolutely absurd.

 

[dgsmith15]

Coverage renews 9/1. When I made the change 5 months ago, it was already absurd but I had to make the carrier switch because the renewal on the homeowners was so ridiculous. Saved several hundred dollars in the end.

Existing policy period was ~$830. Renewal is ~$930. Both vehicles over 12 years old, no claims, no tickets.

I understand insurance (for the most part). It’s supposed to boil down to claims vs. premium. How does underwriting justify an increase of this magnitude when the assets covered have diminished in value and ZERO dollars have been paid out in claims?

Can someone explain to me what the hell is going on and if you’ve had a similar experience?

Insurance - especially auto and homeowners - is a money making business first and foremost. There is little to no reward for being a longtime, loyal customer without claims.

Also, so many newer vehicles are absolutely LOADED with sensors and the cost to replace those is often cost prohibitive and more vehicles are becoming totaled these days than years prior. As such, that additional cost gets passed onto the consumer. This is especially true for vehicles being affected by natural disasters.

Another reason, some states have done away with annual auto inspections which has resulted in a liability over exposure for many insurers. They have to financially “protect” themselves in the event more losses occur as a result of shitboxes cruising the streets, without any consequences.

How do I know? I’ve been employed by a large corporate insurance company for a while.